Seattle Attorney doesn't like the way laws punish people

sudden valley gunner said:

Well it won't be by electing republican statists that's for sure and my state is democratic so that doesn't work....hmmmmm.....

Click to expand...

It won't work by refusing to vote either

Metalhead47 said:

It won't work by refusing to vote either

Click to expand...

:lol: Except rights shouldn't matter no matter who's in office.

And on this issue I see a strong stance that it isn't a right by republicans, and I am guessing you would hope I wouldn't vote for democrats.

BigDave said:

Not an attack SVG, just stating the obvious.

There are those that always have smoke around them. It is well known that where there is smoke their is fire, just as if there is always a conflict going on then we look at the players to see who the common denominator is!

Someone always having conflicts with law enforcement and/or the courts do not represent the vast majority of the law abiding citizen that are exercising their rights to carry for self defense.

When it comes to the laws be it driving or other issues there are way to address it legally, if one feels so strongly about it then contact your legislatures and see if you can get the process moving ahead.

Click to expand...

I don't appreciate your insinuations, Dave.

I argue this issue not because I am "surrounded by smoke".

I argue this issue because it would be a waste of time to "contact my legislators" until such a time as enough people have been convinced (you know, by good arguments) that it has a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere.

sudden valley gunner said:

:lol: Except rights shouldn't matter no matter who's in office.

And on this issue I see a strong stance that it isn't a right by republicans, and I am guessing you would hope I wouldn't vote for democrats.

Click to expand...

Then vote for a third party, if you must. You cannot effect change by refusing to participate, the nature of politics is often choosing the lesser evil. I would say one major party has a much greater history of tramping citizens rights overall.

In the end, regardless of our feeling on what "ought" to be, you & I both know that barring a massive (and violent) paradigm change, driver licences are not going away in our lifetimes.

Metalhead47 said:

I would say one major party has a much greater history of tramping citizens rights overall.

Click to expand...

See, I really just don't see it that way.

Not only are my "pet issues" split nicely right along the partisan divide, both parties make pet issues of their own out of some of the greatest intrusions into my life, and both are responsible for a nearly identically equal share of those things which make me fear most for the future of our country.

And that's not even beginning to consider their synergistic effect... Which is enough to make one's blood chill and boil at once. :uhoh:

marshaul said:

I don't appreciate your insinuations, Dave.

I argue this issue not because I am "surrounded by smoke".

I argue this issue because it would be a waste of time to "contact my legislators" until such a time as enough people have been convinced (you know, by good arguments) that it has a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere.

Click to expand...

To folks like this Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back. And went through the "proper" channels.

Don't feel bad he thinks he is cleverly disguising attacks on me and my "confrontations" with the police , None of which I instituted, are somehow my fault. He also can't quite ever get it through his head that because people talk about things like driving without a license should be a right , or they shouldn't ban marijuana, that those folks don't necessarily engage in those activities, he already thinks them guilty of something.

He is finding smoke where there is none and inferring there is a fire.

marshaul said:

See, I really just don't see it that way.

Not only are my "pet issues" split nicely right along the partisan divide, both parties make pet issues of their own out of some of the greatest intrusions into my life, and both are responsible for a nearly identically equal share of those things which make me fear most for the future of our country.

And that's not even beginning to consider their synergistic effect... Which is enough to make one's blood chill and boil at once. :uhoh:

Click to expand...

Thats pretty much my stance on it too. Its just that those who agree with one party more than the other don't see their rights being trampled. Metalhead is a closet libertarian though he just doesn't know it....

BigDave said:

There is a reason while people loose the right to drive and rightfully so.
This is usually occurs when drivers who have proven to violate laws with no regard to them.

Click to expand...

Not too long ago I forgot to pay a $10 No Seatbelt ticket...because the fine was not paid my drivers license was suspended for 90 days and I had to pay a $85 reinstatement fee after the suspension was over to get my license back.

To me it feels like the authorities use our Drivers Licenses as a way to generate revenue not as a way to keep the highways and streets safe.

marshaul said:

See, I really just don't see it that way.

Not only are my "pet issues" split nicely right along the partisan divide, both parties make pet issues of their own out of some of the greatest intrusions into my life, and both are responsible for a nearly identically equal share of those things which make me fear most for the future of our country.

And that's not even beginning to consider their synergistic effect... Which is enough to make one's blood chill and boil at once. :uhoh:

Click to expand...

The Democrats have given is the IRS, EPA, NEA, ATF, HUD, DEA, welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, federal reserve, etc etc. It's the Democrats who want to regulate what you carry, IF you can carry, what you drive, where you drive, how you drive, where you live, what you wear, what you learn, what your children learn, what you can say, what you can THINK, who your doc is, how you pay him, where you work, how you work, who you work for, etc etc on & one up to AND including how you flush your toilet.

Republicans only want to ban sex drugs & rock n roll.

From my perspective, it will be much easier, and more likely, to bring the Republican party more inline with my ideals and effect real change in my lifetime than through the Democrats. The rise of the Tea Party would seem to support this.

Of course, this is barring a cataclysmic zombie apocalypse, upon which all bets are off :lol:

sudden valley gunner said:

Thats pretty much my stance on it too. Its just that those who agree with one party more than the other don't see their rights being trampled. Metalhead is a closet libertarian though he just doesn't know it....

Click to expand...

Oh I do see my rights being trampled by the "traditional" Republicans. I just see them being trampled much less so, by orders of magnitude, than by the Democrats.

I could *almost* call myself a Libertarian, except that the great icons of the label (Rand Paul, et al), totally loose me when it comes to foreign policy.

And even if I did take the name, my votes would still go to the Republicans (in general), since as I have said before I see the Republican party as the only hope for a PEACEFUL return to liberty and constitutional government in this country.

Guido said:

Not too long ago I forgot to pay a $10 No Seatbelt ticket...because the fine was not paid my drivers license was suspended for 90 days and I had to pay a $85 reinstatement fee after the suspension was over to get my license back.

To me it feels like the authorities use our Drivers Licenses as a way to generate revenue not as a way to keep the highways and streets safe.

Click to expand...

And, when the crap is cut through, the brutal truth is revealed... :lol:

Metalhead47 said:

Republicans only want to ban sex drugs & rock n roll.

Click to expand...

Shall I deliver a corresponding alphabet soup of government excess this "only" has led to?

I really don't want to bother, because I hope we both know that list will compare unfortunately well to yours.

marshaul said:

However, I believe I have already proved that driving is a right, no matter how the supreme court might twist their logic and distort their own precedent in order to declare it otherwise.

The only thing I cannot "prove" is whether such a right allows licensure for its exercise or not. While I of course maintain that no licensure of "right" is permissible, this question is about to be re-settled by the SCOTUS in the context of 2nd Amendment rights.

Click to expand...

Even though "Driving" is not a right that is enumerated such as Religion, RKBA, Assembly, Privacy, etc, I could concede that one has the right to travel using the "means of the day". Since this right doesn't have the same prohibition as is listed in the 2nd Amendment, "Shall not be infringed" would you concede that this right is subject to regulation. Regulation that is designed to protect the general public from those that would go beyond the basic right to travel and conduct contests of speed on the highways? Or drive in a manner put innocent life at risk?

All the arguments about fines and suspension seem to be presented by those who have failed to heed the rules and are now subject to financial punishment. The only time these penalties rise to "criminal" is when people show their upraised middle finger to the court and either don't show as promised or pay fines that were levied.

I'll agree to it being a right but a right that is subject to regulation for the safety of all. Don't confuse my statement with any endorsement of regulations placed on gun ownership, etc. The second amendment specifically states that it shall not be infringed. Where in the constitution does it say that the right to travel can't be regulated?

Metalhead47 said:

It's the Democrats who want to regulate... how you drive...

Click to expand...

Ironically enough, this very thread was started over a Democrat who was trying to *stop* telling people whether and how they could drive, and it was a bunch of *Republicans* who furiously clamored for the government to continue this regulation.

God forbid the "people" are immigrants, at which point Republicans can countenance no end of regulation.

marshaul said:

Ironically enough, this very thread was started over a Democrat who was trying to *stop* telling people whether and how they could drive, and it was a bunch of *Republicans* who furiously clamored for the government to continue this regulation.

God forbid the "people" are immigrants, at which point Republicans can countenance no end of regulation.

Click to expand...

No, this very thread was started over a Democrat refusing to enforce the law at it stands as a way to pander to ILLEGAL aliens (NOT immigrants) and further his own personal political agenda.

Illegal alien =/= lawful immigrant.

sudden valley gunner said:

In every instance I have had the ticket I had no idea I was suspended, believe me it sucks getting a criminal ticket when you thought you had lived by all the rules.

Click to expand...

I am assuming that your tickets were received while in WA State. In my lifetime of driving I have had more tickets than I wanted or could afford when I was young. I am puzzled that you would "Have no idea". Every ticket I have ever received had a fine (Bail Schedule) clearly pointed out to me by the officer/trooper. It was also explained to me that I either had to appear by the date shown on the back, pay the fine, or contact the court for a trial date.

There was no mystery. I either did one of the three or my license could be suspended or even revoked.

I was fortunate that I never received one of the "biggies", DUI, Reckless Driving, etc. so in every case the "Bail" came from a little list that the Officer/Trooper carried with him.

After I paid for a couple of these tickets I had an epiphany. I realized that driving the speed limit, without a bad case of "cranial rectal inversion", with equipment that was legal, and a valid registration, that I no longer seemed to be of interest to the "Cops". I still got where I wanted to go, in the same time (less if you added back the time sitting and waiting for an officer to check your license, even if he didn't write the ticket), and have a lot more money for the fun things I enjoy.

Guido said:

Not too long ago I forgot to pay a $10 No Seatbelt ticket...because the fine was not paid my drivers license was suspended for 90 days and I had to pay a $85 reinstatement fee after the suspension was over to get my license back.

To me it feels like the authorities use our Drivers Licenses as a way to generate revenue not as a way to keep the highways and streets safe.

Click to expand...

$10 wow you got lucky, I had one, paid $120 and no revoking of license, I guess because I paid for what I did.

amlevin said:

Even though "Driving" is not a right that is enumerated such as Religion, RKBA, Assembly, Privacy, etc, I could concede that one has the right to travel using the "means of the day". Since this right doesn't have the same prohibition as is listed in the 2nd Amendment, "Shall not be infringed" would you concede that this right is subject to regulation. Regulation that is designed to protect the general public from those that would go beyond the basic right to travel and conduct contests of speed on the highways? Or drive in a manner put innocent life at risk?

Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by "regulation".

Arresting people who endanger others with their cars? You betcha.

Preventing SVG from driving because he hasn't bent over for some petty-tyrant bureaucrat's request for a handout? Most assuredly not.

All the arguments about fines and suspension seem to be presented by those who have failed to heed the rules and are now subject to financial punishment.

Click to expand...

If I were to accept the accuracy of this contention, the trivial ease with which the rules may be broken renders this of little consequence. So what? If anything, such people know even better what the system accomplishes than the rest of us. I cannot claim firsthand experience; only secondhand.

I'll agree to it being a right but a right that is subject to regulation for the safety of all. Don't confuse my statement with any endorsement of regulations placed on gun ownership, etc. The second amendment specifically states that it shall not be infringed. Where in the constitution does it say that the right to travel can't be regulated?

Click to expand...

The first amendment also states "shall make no law...". Equally stringent and unambiguous, IMO.

I actually might accept quite a bit of "regulation", but I find licensure to be flat-out unacceptable. Licensure is the means by which government has usurped our identities (or at least rendered them insecure). Licensure was the camel's nose in the tent for tearing the Fourth Amendment to shreds (it all started with traffic stops).

Not to mention in every state I've been in (which includes several which are the antithesis of "sanctuaries") illegals drive without license and with impunity, due to the near impossibility of enforcement against those who have no desire to comply in the first place.

Licensure is nothing but bad, IMO. There isn't a single good thing I can say for it.

Metalhead47 said:

No, this very thread was started over a Democrat refusing to enforce the law at it stands as a way to pander to ILLEGAL aliens (NOT immigrants) and further his own personal political agenda.

Illegal alien =/= lawful immigrant.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I reject this distinction. You are free to keep it.

While I accept that government may exert some degree of control over our borders, I see no justification for the mere existence of a person (absent aggression) being "illegal". Yeah, I'm one of those Ron Paul nuts.

Your political analysis is no doubt correct, but it doesn't change the fact that y'all (Republicans) are telling people whether and how they can drive, whereas at least one Democrat is not, and nor would I. "Illegal aliens" are still people, whatever else they may be.

marshaul said:

Sorry, I reject this distinction. You are free to keep it.

While I accept that government may exert control over our borders, I see no justification for the mere existence of a person (absent aggression) being "illegal". Yeah, I'm one of those Ron Paul nuts.

Your political analysis is no doubt correct, but it doesn't change the fact that y'all (Republicans) are telling people whether and how they can drive, whereas at least one Democrat is not, and nor would I. "Illegal aliens" are still people, whatever else they may be.

Click to expand...

When they come into our country without permission, and try their darnest to turn it into THEIR contry, that IS aggression.

I didn't call Rand Paul and his posse nuts, I merely said I disagree with them, specifically on matters of foreign policy

And I think you know as well as I, Democrats are just as much in support of driver licences in general as Republicans are. The core issue of this thread really has nothing to do with driver licences at all, it's an immigration issue.

Criminals are people too.