Drivers License Vs. Right to Travel

Claytron said:

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?

Click to expand...

Claytron said:

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.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

Since9: I may not have made myself clear on the underlying goal of the 2A, so I will try to explain myself better:

...

I hope that made my point clearer.

Click to expand...

since9 said:

That's pretty much what I got the first time around.

One point from one of your earlier posts: Cars are many times more dangerous than guns. Although there are roughly as many firearms in the U.S. as there are motor vehicles (although owned by just half our citizenry) there are approximately 1,500 accidental deaths by firearms each year, while accidental deaths due to automobiles is 43,200, higher that any other cause of accidental death, and nearly thirty times greater than accidental firearms deaths. (28.8, actually)

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

Just remember in a "free" society you don't want to restrict peoples rights or priviledges just because of "accidents".

Click to expand...

CharleyMarbles said:

I'm probly going to get flamed for this but here go's

The reason you are haveing a hard time finding "Law" concerning motor vehicals is because it doesn't exist !!!

I challenge anyone to find a law concerning the "opperation of a motor vehical"
You won't find it that is because they are called the "motor CODE" this code is a contract between the "licenced" opperator and the state that issues the licence. it is also why in some states violations of the code are handled in a court of "equity" and NOT in a court of LAW.
In states where it is dealt with in a court of law it is done so because the motor code is "Given the weight of Law"

Ok go ahead and fire up the flamethrowers

P.S. I am not going to entertain arguments about the laws concerning the opperators ability to opperate a vehical IE DUI or the silly laws about seatbealts as these are in my oppinion just revnue builders IMO.

Click to expand...

END_THE_FED said:

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.
Are you saying that something referred to as a "code" isn't law?
I am confused.
The compilation of "session law" for the Washington state legislator is referred to as the "RCW" or "Revised Code of Washington", are you saying that nothing in there is law?

It is true that most "motor vehicle laws" would fall under a "civil infraction" and not a "criminal charge".

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

I know what he is saying there is some truth to much of it doing a lot of research into it myself.

It's like L&I, many of their rules are giving weight of law although not codified as law on the state level. It's sneaky ways governments get around the will of the people.

Click to expand...

END_THE_FED said:

So basically the differance between "Law" v. "Regulations" such as, the USC v. CFR or the RCW v. WAC ?

Click to expand...