• 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.

OUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL---Defined Legal style

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
I hope someone carries this to the SCOTUS so we can get a ruling on it one way or the other and settled once and for all. I would like to comment on some of the wording in the OP and how it is phrased for example:



One will never receive such documentation as it does not exist as requested in this paragraph. There is no law that requires a private citizen to obtain a drivers license. My wife's aunt is in her 80's and has never had a drivers license and I doubt that she ever will. She does not drive but she does travel and she does like to tell her children how to drive.

I assume that the OP meant that a private citizen is required to obtain a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on the public highway but that is not what he asked in the request.

Colorado RSA 42-2-101 is pretty clear. Or is this some exercise in symantics: "you can't require me to get a DL because I have no intention of ever driving in CO." Maybe it's because it's monday and I have a headache, but where is this going?
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
How kind of you to look out for people who would ignorantly walk in to a situation unprepared. While on the surface that seems nice and noble. But what does it do to teach the individual. That there will be someone there to hold your hand so you don't get hurt. How about letting people be responsible for themselves. We are all accountable for our own actions. If you dumped the knowingly hot coffee on yourself, how is that someone else's fault??? Responsibility principles are best learned the hard way, trial and error. You learn best from making mistakes. Or from watching others make the mistakes.

So many millions of people are brainwashed into a servant attitude. There will always be sheep that just want to follow the masses, right off the edge of the cliff. But there are also people who are willing to stand up and fight for our freedoms and Justice. That's how our country came to be, and now that we are turning from that, it's turning downhill quickly. If you remove the founding stones, the building will begin to fall. That can be good and it can be bad depending on the building.
There will always be nay sayers in everything. I have run across quite a few of them. I know people that will claim to understand, believe and claim to live by something. Then turn around and do the complete opposite. Wherever 2 or more people are gathered together, there will be conflict.

Just because one or two or 5 million don't believe something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or just because one judge or 5000 judges ignore the Law, and his oaths doesn't mean the truth facts and justice doesn't exist. It just means that he refuses to see it, and uphold it. I have seen it in person. If you have looked into the legal system at all. You would see the injustice that happens on a daily basis.

The whole objective is to put the info out there for the people who want it and are looking for it. When the time is right, they will find it. Even if you don't want to believe any of it. Some of the case info is interesting. You can learn things from someone else's writing, even if you don't believe it. Every individual will take from it what they want. I simply put it out there for everyone to start thinking, discussing, and digging, if you so choose. Mission Accomplished!!!

I recently read a quote by Thomas Jefferson I think that said something like, Any man with power, needs to be mistrusted. It's smart to question any authority who has no accountability, and directly receives benefits from that situation. Power corrupts all the time every time, that's proven through history. That's why there should always be checks and balances in the system.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Ok some of this is State specific but most of it is general. It's a compilation of multiple sources. If you want to us this as a format and do something similar, feel free. Just have to customize it to your location. Or just us it as a resource. So grab some popcorn and a soda and get ready for some light reading.

Popcorn.....................check
Soda.........................check
Candy Dots and M&M's..check

Ready....Set....Go

RIGHT TO TRAVEL Without taxation or licensing with Case Cites and info

Brief and Memorandum of Law
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE quote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


What case is this brief in support of? No one says you do not have the right of peaceful transit anywhere in Colorado. No one says you have to get a driver's license, either. If you plan on 'driving' a motor vehicle, CO RSA 42-2-101 is the law of the land. Are you planning on getting arrested for DWOL and then appealing to the SCOCO based on your information and belief in this brief--if that's what it is? If so, good luck. You'll need it. While I may agree with you in principle, there are some battles that just can't be won. This is one of them. It is 'settled law.' And your brief is just plain wrong in many areas. E.g.:

"2. Further, under CRS 42-2-101, it states;

Licenses for drivers required.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in part 4 of this article for commercial drivers, no person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has been issued a currently valid driver's or minor driver's license or an instruction permit by the department under this article.

This statute states it involves commercial drivers, NOT private citizens NOT driving for hire or driving commercial vehicles."

That is precisely what the section does NOT say. It excludes commercial drivers, doesn't include them. There are other examples, but you get my point. You spent a lot of time and effort in this, and I give you credit, but for what?
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
That is precisely what the section does NOT say. It excludes commercial drivers, doesn't include them. There are other examples, but you get my point. You spent a lot of time and effort in this, and I give you credit, but for what?

That's the way I read it.

To paraphrase, "licensure for commercial drivers is already defined elsewhere. Except for commercial drivers, no person shall...[drive on the highways without a license].
 
Last edited:

Butch00

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
215
Location
Alaska
That's the way I read it.

To paraphrase, "licensure for commercial drivers is already defined elsewhere. Except for commercial drivers, no person shall...[drive on the highways without a license].

Drive is a Commercial term....All licenses are commercial.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Drive is a Commercial term....All licenses are commercial.

Wrong. Commercial licenses are for the engagement in "commerce." If no commerce is involved, e.g., drivers licenses, concealed carry licenses, they are by definition 'non-commercial' via statute and Common Law.


A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) is a driver's license required in the United States to operate any type of vehicle which has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 26,001 lb (11,793 kg) or more for commercial use, or transports quantities of hazardous materials that require warning placards under Department of Transportation regulations, or that is designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the driver. This includes (but is not limited to) tow trucks, tractor trailers, and buses.[1]

The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 was signed into law on October 27, 1986. The primary intent of the Act was to improve highway safety by ensuring that truck drivers and drivers of tractor trailers and buses are qualified to drive Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs), and to remove drivers that are unsafe and unqualified from the highways. The Act continued to give states the right to issue CDLs, but the federal government established minimum requirements that must be met when issuing a CDL.[2]
 
Last edited:

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
There are legal and dictionary definitions that come into play. That changes the meaning and interpretation. Those have to be defined first. Most of what is being argued is the statutes. Nobody said there weren't Unconstitutional states on the books. Just because the statute says something does not mean that is fact, or Law. There are much greater and deeper issues that need to be looked into first. This is also only one example, of one state. Not all the statutes in all the States are written with the same wording.
 
Last edited:

Butch00

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
215
Location
Alaska
27 CFR 72.11
Every thing goes back to commerce.
Ever since HJR 192 in 1933.
You have consented to government control.
You will never see a license to travel....That is an inalienable Right
Title 18 section 32...Definition of a motor vehicle....any vehicle used
in commerce.
State laws cannot violate a federal Right.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Yes, I do agree that driver's licensure is a patently unconstitutional infringement of the right to travel for the purpose of assembly, as enumerated by the first amendment, when combined with the "popularity" doctrine espoused by the Heller court over related second amendment claims.

In short, according the the SCOTUS's own precedent, while protection of a right need not protect every possible means of exercising that right, it certainly must protect the most popular. In the case of Heller, that's the semi-automatic handgun.

In the case of travel for first-amendment-protected assembly, that's the motor vehicle.

But, the reality is that our rights have not been lost through murky redefinition of statutory terms. They have been lost by the courts simply ignoring, in its entirety, logic which prohibits state action in these arenas.

Issues relating to application of the Federal commerce clause are irrelevant. These are state laws.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
27 CFR 72.11
Every thing goes back to commerce.
Ever since HJR 192 in 1933.
You have consented to government control.
You will never see a license to travel....That is an inalienable Right
Title 18 section 32...Definition of a motor vehicle....any vehicle used
in commerce.
State laws cannot violate a federal Right.

CFR has nothing to do with state laws. That DLs are not in the province of the Feds is because regulatory authority is not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution for licensing actions of citizens, via the 10th Amendment, it resides with the states. Only Commerce via interstate transport of goods, falls into the realm of CFR by the Commerce Clause. Furthermore, CFRs are based upon the USC and are not rights, but statutory laws.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
"Just because the statute says something does not mean that is fact, or Law."


Yes it does. It may be a bad law, but it is the law notwithstanding.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
I don't think you know and understand the difference between a Statute, Act or Penal Code, and a Law. Numerous courts have also opined that anything unconstitutional or tramples the rights secured and defined by the Constitution, common right or reason IS in fact null and void.
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60 or
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, (1803)

Also see:"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

“License”-. Certificate or the document itself which gives permission(Blacks Law, 4th Edition, P.1067) By legal definition, a license grants permission for something that is otherwise not allowed.

So if the courts have ruled, traveling is a common Right, Legislation can't infringe those Rights, but if you don't have a "license" you will get hauled to jail, assaulted etc....

So what is the truth, and what is being ignored and by who???

If you begin to research legal definitions, legal interpretation and Common Law, when they apply and when they don't, you will being to understand more of the complex issues at play.
 
Last edited:

Butch00

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
215
Location
Alaska
"Just because the statute says something does not mean that is fact, or Law."


Yes it does. It may be a bad law, but it is the law notwithstanding.

Marbury V Madison 1803
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
No law can go against this Constitution and if it does it is void from inception.
All of you who think government can do anything it wants and you consent to it remember...
Evil prevails when good men do NOTHING.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
does this mean that you disagree with the OP, or that you could care less that the state tramples on peoples rights?

It means that I think that the contention that the regulation of a single mode of travel on roads acquired and built by governmental agencies for the use of all somehow tramples on the right to travel is a bit silly. It also means that posting such a contention without the full willingness to test it himself, but running the risk that some poor goober will read the post, try it, and suffer the consequences, is just a tad irresponsible.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
I don't know about yours, but the State Constitution here says:

WI Constitution
Equality; inherent rights. Section 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986] All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986]

When did I consent? When did you? Did you consent with full disclosure of terms to being liable for taxes and fees and charged with violations that have no "claim of injury" as required by established Case Law.

If I can give consent, then I can deny or remove it also.
 
Last edited:

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
Colorado RSA 42-2-101 is pretty clear. Or is this some exercise in symantics: "you can't require me to get a DL because I have no intention of ever driving in CO." Maybe it's because it's monday and I have a headache, but where is this going?

Maybe I don't understand your response and did not research 42-2-101 other than what someone posted but does it say that every person in CO has to have a DL? I have never heard of any state requiring every resident to obtain a DL. Only those that plan to drive have to obtain a DL and I know plenty of people that do not have one, never had one and do not plan to get one. There is no requirement for a person that does not plan to drive on the public highways to obtain a DL but that is what the OP was asking about.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
It means that I think that the contention that the regulation of a single mode of travel on roads acquired and built by governmental agencies for the use of all somehow tramples on the right to travel is a bit silly.

I'm going to take a page out of your book and suggest that you put your money where your mouth is, and see how you get by on horse or foot.

Or I would, if you could could handle my inept criticism, and hadn't ignored me. :p
 
Top