Skolnik charged with criminal driving with suspended license

boyscout399 said:

The right to travel has been recognized by the supreme court. The right to operate a car has not been determined to be a right. There are many other ways to travel besides operating your own motor vehicle. Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege granted by the state and therefore has nothing to do with the Constitution (which is for the most part restrictions on federal government, not state government). Skolnik in this case has shown disregard for the state's laws and put the public in danger by driving a possibly dangerous vehicle. Also, with lack of insurance he has put the public in more danger because if the happens to get into an accident there is no viable solution to pay for the damages he causes.

Click to expand...

The "right" to drive in other states is not enjoyed because of any federal law either, but rather by reciprocal agreement amongst the states.

Skolnik is a classic example of why people in glass houses shouldn't....(fill in the blank).

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy! :lol:

The Supreme Court has ruled...Under the liberty clause of the federal constitution it is your right to travel in this country. American Jurisprudence says...You have the right to travel by Foot, Horse Drawn Carriage, or Automobile.
Licenses are Commercial.
Title 18 USC Section 31...Definition of a motor vehicle...Any vehicle used on the highway in commerce.
A right is a right weather you like it or not.

Butch00 said:

The Supreme Court has ruled...Under the liberty clause of the federal constitution it is your right to travel in this country. American Jurisprudence says...You have the right to travel by Foot, Horse Drawn Carriage, or Automobile.
Licenses are Commercial.
Title 18 USC Section 31...Definition of a motor vehicle...Any vehicle used on the highway in commerce.
A right is a right weather you like it or not.

Click to expand...

We can debate this endlessly, but here's how I look at it:

Right or wrong, if I want to carry concealed, I have to get a permit to do so. And right or wrong, if I want to drive a car, I need to get a license, registration, insurance, and inspection.

Whether those requirements are reasonable or even lawful is irrelevant. Until such time as they change, they are the law. Skolnik willfully violated the law, knowing that those laws are in place to protect public safety.

ep0k said:

We can debate this endlessly, but here's how I look at it:

Right or wrong, if I want to carry concealed, I have to get a permit to do so. And right or wrong, if I want to drive a car, I need to get a license, registration, insurance, and inspection.

Whether those requirements are reasonable or even lawful is irrelevant. Until such time as they change, they are the law. Skolnik willfully violated the law, knowing that those laws are in place to protect public safety.

Click to expand...

Precisely correct.

It has nothing to do with Public Safety....The Corporate State wants your money.
I think 70 to 80 percent of head-on collisions in Maine are licensed drivers.
So how safe are you.

Butch00 said:

It has nothing to do with Public Safety....The Corporate State wants your money.
I think 70 to 80 percent of head-on collisions in Maine are licensed drivers.
So how safe are you.

Click to expand...

Licensed drivers constitute the overwhelming majority of the people on the road so of course they'll also constitute the majority of the people in accidents. If 20% of the drivers on the road did not have licenses, and they represented 20% of vehicle accidents, that would be a straight correlation. If they represent a much smaller percentage of motor vehicle operators and account for 20-30% of accidents then unlicensed drivers are disproportionately at-fault and that would suggest that licensure correlates positively with reduced risk of causing an accident...

Which is not really what we're talking about. Skolnik knew that he was breaking the law, whether or not that law is legitimate in its own right. I get your point that you see licensure, registration, etc as a money grab on the part of state corporatists (and I'm even inclined to agree, I feel the same way about paying a tax on my 2nd Amendment rights), but does that prevent you from complying with it?

jonjon_jon said:

Good God lets hope he doesn't. I hope you don't mean that. You don't want to wish that on anyone.

Click to expand...

wasnt what i meant at all!!! you wouldnt understand!!!

xd-over

Butch00 said:

It has nothing to do with Public Safety....The Corporate State wants your money.
I think 70 to 80 percent of head-on collisions in Maine are licensed drivers.
So how safe are you.

Click to expand...

Nearly 100% of the vehicles involved in accidents are licensed - so what?

This is going way off on a tangent.

This is about Skolnik wanting everyone else to follow his rules, but he can't follow the collective rules/laws of everyone else. The hypocrisy is glaring and it won't wash off easily.

Grapeshot said:

Nearly 100% of the vehicles involved in accidents are licensed - so what?

This is going way off on a tangent.

This is about Skolnik wanting everyone else to follow his rules, but he can't follow the collective rules/laws of everyone else. The hypocrisy is glaring and it won't wash off easily.

Click to expand...

Which was exactly my point. No rights for us, but special rules for Skolnik. It becomes particularly glaring when he paints open carry as a public safety risk. You know what's a bigger public safety risk? AN UNSAFE VEHICLE and a driver with no insurance to pay up when he causes an accident.

Butch00 said:

It has nothing to do with Public Safety....The Corporate State wants your money.
I think 70 to 80 percent of head-on collisions in Maine are licensed drivers.
So how safe are you.

Click to expand...

that's an invalid argument because the majority of drivers are licensed... If 70-80% of collisions are licensed drivers, and 99% of drivers are licensed then obviously there's going to be a large proportion of collisions by licensed drivers vs unlicensed drivers.

The correct comparison would be if you compared the percentage of licensed drivers that get into accidents vs the percentage of unlicensed drivers that get into accidents. I think if that was compared you would find that unlicensed drivers get into accidents at a higher rate than licensed drivers.

Also, comparing the propensity for collisions of an inspected car vs the propensity for collisions in an uninspected car I believe would yield results that show an uninspected car is usually more dangerous than an inspected one.

Similarly, compare the cost imposed on the innocent victim of an insured collision vs an uninsured collision... you get where I'm going...

boyscout399 said:

that's an invalid argument because the majority of drivers are licensed... If 70-80% of collisions are licensed drivers, and 99% of drivers are licensed then obviously there's going to be a large proportion of collisions by licensed drivers vs unlicensed drivers.

The correct comparison would be if you compared the percentage of licensed drivers that get into accidents vs the percentage of unlicensed drivers that get into accidents. I think if that was compared you would find that unlicensed drivers get into accidents at a higher rate than licensed drivers.

Also, comparing the propensity for collisions of an inspected car vs the propensity for collisions in an uninspected car I believe would yield results that show an uninspected car is usually more dangerous than an inspected one.

Similarly, compare the cost imposed on the innocent victim of an insured collision vs an uninsured collision... you get where I'm going...

Click to expand...

Yep sure do. You are putting torch to his straw man argument. :lol:

It's hard to win an argument, when people voluntarily give up Rights because they don't like them.
But because in America they are individual Rights I can exercise them, and it is none of your business.

Butch00 said:

It's hard to win an argument, when people voluntarily give up Rights because they don't like them.
But because in America they are individual Rights I can exercise them, and it is none of your business.

Click to expand...

I just think that you're not going to get anywhere by simply ignoring the laws because you don't think they're constitutional. If you think a law is unconstitutional, and it affects you, then sue to have the law thrown out. Heller and McDonald didn't keep firearms in their home in disregard of the law while they were challenging it. Do you think your arresting officer when you're caught driving without a license because you don't agree with the licensing process is going to say, "oh yeah, I see you're point, requiring a driver's license is unconstitutional. I guess I'll let you go now..."

Good luck with that...