• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Drivers License Vs. Right to Travel

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I am sure that Shachtman is cited because the appeals court states that there is a "natural right to travel" that is limited only by the rights of others and is subject to reasonable regulation.

In my Internet searches, I have seen a lot of parroting (including some word-for-word postings) that snatch snippets from the cases, without providing links to them. The difficulty of finding a link to some of these cases really raises strong doubt that folks have actually read the decisions. Most likely, they read posts that reference the decisions, like the poster's conclusions, and simply reposted the unresearched idea somewhere else.

If someone cites a decision, they ought to at least be able to afford those reading their post the opportunity to read the decision. Otherwise, I just assume that the poster is just blowing so much smoke.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I found a Washington court of appeals case Spokane v. Port. The constitutionality of the state's DL requirement was challenged. The court ruled the requirement constitutional.

From that case, I found this particular reference to another case:

See State v. Scheffel, 82 Wn.2d 872, 880, 514 P.2d 1052 (1973) (one does not have an absolute constitutional right to a particular mode of travel)

which is precisely the point I was making in an earlier post.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
I am sure that Shachtman is cited because the appeals court states that there is a "natural right to travel" that is limited only by the rights of others and is subject to reasonable regulation.

In my Internet searches, I have seen a lot of parroting (including some word-for-word postings) that snatch snippets from the cases, without providing links to them. The difficulty of finding a link to some of these cases really raises strong doubt that folks have actually read the decisions. Most likely, they read posts that reference the decisions, like the poster's conclusions, and simply reposted the unresearched idea somewhere else.

If someone cites a decision, they ought to at least be able to afford those reading their post the opportunity to read the decision. Otherwise, I just assume that the poster is just blowing so much smoke.



You find a lot of this on the internet. You can take partial quotes from a case and make it seem like it says something different from, sometimes even contrary to, the actual opinion of the court.

It seems most of these "right to travel" quotes are cases having to do with passports.
I would still be interested in reviewing the full opinions if I can find them, or if someone can post them.


My personal opinion for driving is that once you reach a certain age chosen by the state.
lets say 15, then you are now able to drive, no license required. Licenses could not be suspended for failure to pay civil infractions. If the state believes you are a danger on the road and shouldn't be able to drive, then they should have to take you to court and a judge or jury would decide if the license should be suspended and for how long.
The state should have the burden of proof to demonstrate you are too much of a danger to drive.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
From that case, I found this particular reference to another case:



which is precisely the point I was making in an earlier post.


Funny, as I read that line I started to think of your earlier post.



Speaking of your earlier post. Something about the points you made got me thinking. (driving can be restricted because it is not the only way to travel).

Driving is not the only mode of travel but it is the most common and the most convenient
We do not have an enumerated right to travel by car, but we do have a natural right to travel.
It seems like it may be reasonable to say that the right to travel would be extended to whatever the most used and most convenient mode of transportation is at the time.
(I am not saying this is the way it is, Just a thought that came to mind.)

I am still not sure if the framers would of considered it a right or not. So far my research has proved inconclusive.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I incline to licensing for reasons I stated above.

The right to travel is a natural right, as is the right to self-defense.

There is no enumerated right to drive on the highways that is analogous to the RKBA.

Due to the need to protect the rights of others from indiscriminate driving by some, there needs to be an agreed upon set of "rules of the road" that drivers follow, making each's exercise of that mode of travel possible and safe. Before someone should be allowed to exercise that particular mode (that mode being driving on the highway) of exercising the right to travel, they should illustrate that they have a reasonable familiarity with those rules and an ability to operate within them. Therefore, licensing that particular mode of travel is reasonable.

Some might argue that the same reasoning could be applied to licensing the RKBA. I would simply point out again that, while there is a natural right to travel, there is no natural or enumerated right to use the mode of travel that is driving on the highway. On the other hand, there is both a natural right to defend oneself and the enumerated right to use the mode of keeping and bearing arms to exercise that right.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Funny, as I read that line I started to think of your earlier post.

Speaking of your earlier post. Something about the points you made got me thinking. (driving can be restricted because it is not the only way to travel).

Driving is not the only mode of travel but it is the most common and the most convenient
We do not have an enumerated right to travel by car, but we do have a natural right to travel.
It seems like it may be reasonable to say that the right to travel would be extended to whatever the most used and most convenient mode of transportation is at the time.
(I am not saying this is the way it is, Just a thought that came to mind.)

I am still not sure if the framers would of considered it a right or not. So far my research has proved inconclusive.

I don't think that driving, being the most convenient way to travel, must be therefore treated as an enumerated or natural right. I don't believe that there is a right to travel conveniently, just a right to travel not being prevented (or effectively prevented by over-regulation). I think the Founders were not opposed to reasonable regulation that still allowed the mass exercise of the natural or enumerated right (of which driving is neither).

When driving became dangerous, rules of the road, and licensing to increase the probability that they would be followed, became reasonable. I don't know when we crossed that line, but there was an ad that illustrated that we are clearly on the other side of that line now.

It said that in 190x there were exactly two cars in the State of Ohio (IIRC). They got into an accident.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
The right to defend ourself is is similar to our right to travel.

The second Amendment was written to protect us from our government and to protect our government.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.


"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938,
at 941.

In all four of the above quotes the word travel was used, not drive. I have not seen where anyone is being denied the right to travel on the roads and highways, just that they are prohibited from operating a vehicle. As for driving being the most common way of trave I am not sure about that at all. Millions of people travel all over the country and world without driving. When my wife and I go anywhere I am usually the one driving and she is riding. Millions of people take the bus, train, taxi or ride with someone else. In New York City it is fairly common for people there to live all their life without ever driving anywhere. Just because you have the right to travel from New York to LA doesn't mean that you have the right to buy a new BMW and drive it without ever having driven before and with no license tags, insurance or drivers license. But it does mean that if you pass all the requirements the state must issue you a drivers license and cannot take it from because you called the governor an idiot in an Internet post.
 

Claytron

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
402
Location
Maine
I incline to licensing for reasons I stated above.

The right to travel is a natural right, as is the right to self-defense.

There is no enumerated right to drive on the highways that is analogous to the RKBA.

Due to the need to protect the rights of others from indiscriminate driving by some, there needs to be an agreed upon set of "rules of the road" that drivers follow, making each's exercise of that mode of travel possible and safe. Before someone should be allowed to exercise that particular mode (that mode being driving on the highway) of exercising the right to travel, they should illustrate that they have a reasonable familiarity with those rules and an ability to operate within them. Therefore, licensing that particular mode of travel is reasonable.

Some might argue that the same reasoning could be applied to licensing the RKBA. I would simply point out again that, while there is a natural right to travel, there is no natural or enumerated right to use the mode of travel that is driving on the highway. On the other hand, there is both a natural right to defend oneself and the enumerated right to use the mode of keeping and bearing arms to exercise that right.

but another thing to keep in mind is that when these rules and rights were thought up we had firearms but did not have motor vehicles. The same way they couldnt have anticipated compact machine pistols and sawed off shot guns, they couldnt have anticipated sport bikes and cars that go 150 miles an hour. So even though we may not have a "natural right to use cars on highways" neither do we have the "natural right to carry a handgun", instead we have the right to travel and the right to bear arms.

Saying we can travel but not use a sufficient means like a car is like saying we can bear arms but not use a sufficient means such as a semi auto or higher caliber.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
but another thing to keep in mind is that when these rules and rights were thought up we had firearms but did not have motor vehicles. The same way they couldnt have anticipated compact machine pistols and sawed off shot guns, they couldnt have anticipated sport bikes and cars that go 150 miles an hour. So even though we may not have a "natural right to use cars on highways" neither do we have the "natural right to carry a handgun", instead we have the right to travel and the right to bear arms.

Saying we can travel but not use a sufficient means like a car is like saying we can bear arms but not use a sufficient means such as a semi auto or higher caliber.



Eye95 addressed some of those points in his original argument, found on post 6 of this thread.
 
Last edited:

Claytron

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
402
Location
Maine
Eye95 addressed some of those points in his original argument, found on post 6 of this thread.

im sorry but i read his post that was at #6 in the thread and dont see how my ideas were answered. The only thing i could see you referring to as an answer would be his theory that arguing for right to travel could make them tighten their grip on the right to bear arms..... pretty much a "dont make a big deal or they will try and take our guns" kind of thing.

We have the right to bear arms not to Open Carry or Concealed Carry specifically. His point is that we shouldnt expect to be able to freely travel on a highway with vehicles because the right to travel doesnt mention vehicles, but at the same time the second amendment doesnt say we have the right to use or bear guns, it says "bear arms" and arms does not nessecarily mean guns.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
im sorry but i read his post that was at #6 in the thread and dont see how my ideas were answered. The only thing i could see you referring to as an answer would be his theory that arguing for right to travel could make them tighten their grip on the right to bear arms..... pretty much a "dont make a big deal or they will try and take our guns" kind of thing.

We have the right to bear arms not to Open Carry or Concealed Carry specifically. His point is that we shouldnt expect to be able to freely travel on a highway with vehicles because the right to travel doesnt mention vehicles, but at the same time the second amendment doesnt say we have the right to use or bear guns, it says "bear arms" and arms does not nessecarily mean guns.

Yea or free speach shouldn't include , radio, T.V. or internet and computers.

Have to remember eye is a an authoritarian "republican" so his viewpoints are not necessarily going to be pro constitutional or freedom.

We have the right to travel our highways, they say not in a car I dare anyone to try to walk or ride a horse and buggy down a freeway and see how far that right extends.....:banghead: :p
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
im sorry but i read his post that was at #6 in the thread and dont see how my ideas were answered. The only thing i could see you referring to as an answer would be his theory that arguing for right to travel could make them tighten their grip on the right to bear arms..... pretty much a "dont make a big deal or they will try and take our guns" kind of thing.

We have the right to bear arms not to Open Carry or Concealed Carry specifically. His point is that we shouldnt expect to be able to freely travel on a highway with vehicles because the right to travel doesnt mention vehicles, but at the same time the second amendment doesnt say we have the right to use or bear guns, it says "bear arms" and arms does not nessecarily mean guns.




He provided counter points to some of your arguments when he discussed his opinion on Natural v. Enumerated rights. I am not going to try to expound upon his arguments any further, I will leave that to him. That was not why I directed you to his post. I did so because I thought he made a few good counter points to some of your points.

I had some similar thoughts as you.
Eye95 made some good points and made me really think about my point of view. I may not agree with everything he said to counter the argument, but to claim he never addressed it with articulate and well thought out points would be disingenuous.

I happen to believe that even absent the 2nd amendment we would still have a right to keep and bear arms. I beleive this extends from the right to self defense. It is not the only way to defend oneself but many would agree it is the most common and effective way to do so.

I also believe that even though we don't have an enumerated right to drive a car, the right to do so extends naturally from the right to travel. A car is not the only way to travel but it is the most common and effective.
I also have trouble thinking of a mode of transportation (other then walking maybe) that is not regulated by the government.

As much as I would like to and as hard a I have looked, I have yet to find a supreme court case that agrees. All I have found is cut and paste quotes that on further analysis appear to be taken out of context.

If you disagree with Eye95's points, then try to refute them with honest debate and argument dont deny their presence.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Thanks your comments. I seriously appreciate your advocacy for genuine discussion.

That being said, I am not too concerned with his posts. That someone says my arguments are not there does not make them not there. I don't feel the need to restate them or even to discuss them with this person. (I don't even read what he writes. I tend to read and reply to folks actually discussing the issues at hand.)

In general, I present my arguments to influence all the folks who read the thread, whether they post or not. I know some are predisposed to not allow arguments to sway their POV. Meh. I am posting to the open-minded.

I have stated the essential argument twice in this thread now. It is there for anyone interested in reading it.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
I've been searching the heck outta the Internet for the ruling, preferring to read it over just repeating what another has said about it. All I can find are virtually the same few words about it repeated again and again and again on message boards by posters trying to make the same point.

There is a lot of cutting and pasting going on--and not a heckuva lot of reading going on.

I would be profoundly grateful for an opportunity to actually read this decision should someone be able to post a link.

Try lexus/nexus, law research site. It may cost some money. Try Harvard or Yale law school sites.

It is just a matter of knowing where to look.

:cool:
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Nah. I'll leave it to the folks who claim it says what they say it says to back up their assertions, choosing not to assign any credibility to the claims if they choose not to post support.

Like I said, I keep seeing the same words over and over again, posted without support. It reeks of Internet mythology.
 

Claytron

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
402
Location
Maine
He provided counter points to some of your arguments when he discussed his opinion on Natural v. Enumerated rights.

If you disagree with Eye95's points, then try to refute them with honest debate and argument dont deny their presence.

I didnt disagree with his points. I read his post and didnt SEE the points he was making that countered what i said. That was not my method of "denying" his points, it was my method of communicating the fact that i didnt understand what is was he said you that you were referring to.

From what i read his view was that we didnt get a specific right to drive a car, just to "travel", and what came to my mind was the fact that we dont get a "right to carry guns" we have a "right to bear arms".

Again i apologize if just didnt see which points he made, i read the whole post and i just read it again and i guess for some reason i cant comprehend what hes saying, thats my fault.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
However, "right to travel" doesn't negate a state's authority or responsibility to ensure a minimum level of safety exists on its roadways, and a state does this through drivers education, testing, and licensing programs.

I've seen studies that indicated that accident rates actually went up after mandatory driver's ed. laws took effect.

My opinion on the matter is purely constitutional: attempting to promote safety on the roads is not one of the enumerated powers, and therefore not within the purview, of the federal government. However, according to Founders like Madison, it would have to be considered one of a number of other bad ideas, including establishing state religions and taxing the incomes of residents, that states should be free to experiment with in the interest of promoting competition between the states, with the best systems winning out.
 

Claytron

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
402
Location
Maine
.

Thanks your comments. I seriously appreciate your advocacy for genuine discussion.

That being said, I am not too concerned with his posts. That someone says my arguments are not there does not make them not there. I don't feel the need to restate them or even to discuss them with this person. (I don't even read what he writes. I tend to read and reply to folks actually discussing the issues at hand.)

In general, I present my arguments to influence all the folks who read the thread, whether they post or not. I know some are predisposed to not allow arguments to sway their POV. Meh. I am posting to the open-minded.

I dont understand exactly what your problem is. I didnt deny your points, i said that i couldnt find and/or comprehend them. I read your posts and thought them over and responded with my opinion and instead of correcting me or telling me why i may be wrong you just act like a jerk about it and claim im trying to do something im not.

From what i understand your argument is natural vs enumerated rights, you say that the right to defend yourself is a natural right and that it extends to the right to bear arms. You say the right to travel isnt a natural right but an enumerated right? And the fact that the information you provide does not say we have a "right to drive cars" but instead a "right to travel" is your argument against being able to freely travel using a car?

If ive read and repeated your viewpoints correctly then how does the "right to bear arms" extend to carrying firearms if the "right to travel" doesnt extend to using cars on highways?

Once again nothing i said here was sarcastic or an attempt at "denying your points", it was me trying to understand your viewpoint and trying to offer my opinion, and i apologize if something that honest and harmless offends you that badly.
I have stated the essential argument twice in this thread now. It is there for anyone interested in reading it.
 
Top