Need a licence to drive?

VW_Factor said:

I like you and all, but I think you forget that people build their own motor vehicles.. Of course not everyone does this, but how would the government have a hand in that?

At any rate, beyond the simple, does our government have the power to give us "permits" to drive..

I was hoping to see discussion of.. How can someone in our own government attempt to push something as a right in a foreign land, when our own land doesn't recognize it as a right in itself. The hypocritical statements and attitudes astound me, especially coming from someone who tramples the rights of their own people.

Click to expand...

Do they have the power to "give us permits to drive?" Sure they can give us whatever we ask, accept and allow them to force feed us. Do they have the ability to enforce and require...well that's a different issue. The simple answer is no...but it's more complicated than that. They will attempt to accuse and pass judgement on you for violations of those rules, while bending and ignoring them at the same time. But in the end they are just rules. If you don't believe that then look them up in one of them big fancy books they print them in. Does it say Law on the cover? No it doesn't, it says penal code, statute, act etc. There are bigger issues of real law that come into play with the enforcement. Remember that old slogan...Just Say No. Those are some powerful words if used correctly.

How do they....they just do. Because they see it fitting their agenda. It also happens because of the ignorance of much of the populace that don't know and comprehend how Law works.

eye95 said:

Driving is not a human right. Travel is a natural right.

Denying a segment of the population the privilege of driving on the public byways based on their sex, while extending that privilege to the remaining population makes the exercise of the right of travel unjustifiably more difficult for that segment. Were no one allowed to drive or were the same licensing requirements applied to all, the right to travel would not be violated for anyone.

Click to expand...

So glad your beginning to understand:
As well as traveling, by your own personal choice of means is also a Right that shouldn't be regulated, which turns a Right into a privilege for a specific few. Traveling is a natural God\creator given Right that can't be taken away. One can't realistically travel to a particular destination without using the public right of ways, and avoid private property. So one has the Right to travel uninhibited by any normal means they choose over the public roadways.

eye95 said:

the government has a compelling interest in regulating that activity.

Click to expand...

Yeah, money.

If they gave a rats @$$ about you and your safety, they would re legalise pot, ban alcohol and cigs, and issue guns to everyone who could safely use one.

stainless1911 said:

Yeah, money.

If they gave a rats @$$ about you and your safety, they would re legalise pot, ban alcohol and cigs, and issue guns to everyone who could safely use one.

Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Motofixxer said:

...So glad your beginning to understand: ...

Click to expand...

Please do not imply that I am moving one iota in the direction of your irrational (IMO) point of view on the privilege of driving. I am not. I find your posts on the subject to be both dangerous and reprehensible.

On edit: If you wonder why I am being harsh, read what this poster has written on the subject. Someday someone will assume that his conclusions on the subject have some legal merit--and spend some time in jail as a result, hence the spot-on words "dangerous" and "reprehensible."

eye95 said:

Please do not imply that I am moving one iota in the direction of your irrational (IMO) point of view on the privilege of driving. I am not. I find your posts on the subject to be both dangerous and reprehensible.

Click to expand...

Hyperbole much? LOL

It's amazing how so many people never grow out of the phase of needing a parent to wipe their rear end, set their curfew, and list their chores. Even more amazing is that they choose government to fulfill that role.

I respectfully see the compelling merits of both sides of this lively debate.

Given that motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death amongst 25 year old and younger Americans, there is a compelling interest for a collective regulation of motor vehicles.

It is telling that the most common interaction citizens will have with the government is involving their state's vehicle regulations and yet these encounters are notorious amongst our culture for inefficiency and the enforcement of traffic law is used in many places as a revenue stream for local, county or state governments.

While the compelling interest does indeed exist, the way that the authority is being used clearly needs to be re-examined.

eye95 said:

Please do not imply that I am moving one iota in the direction of your irrational (IMO) point of view on the privilege of driving. I am not. I find your posts on the subject to be both dangerous and reprehensible.

Click to expand...

Ok so you disagree...AND??? Your entitled to your own opinions. I have posted plenty of cases...you sir have posted opinion and disagreement. So we disagree...moving on.

eye95 said:

On edit: If you wonder why I am being harsh, read what this poster has written on the subject. Someday someone will assume that his conclusions on the subject have some legal merit--and spend some time in jail as a result, hence the spot-on words "dangerous" and "reprehensible."

Click to expand...

If someone decides to walk into a courtroom and attempt to defend himself with some quotes he got off a webpage...then he is the fool, not I sir. He as a competent person that took it upon himself to act of his own free will and will reap the consequences of those actions, alone. As would I if I did the same.

In case anyone wants to read the info...it's here

There is also more here...

I for one feel travel by which ever means is most common at the time is a right. There is a small group of activist challenging the issuance of drivers license as well as plates on cars.

eye95 said:

You can build and drive all the motor vehicles you want on your property and drive them around on your property. The instant you take one onto a public byway with the millions of other cars, many being operated at high speeds, the government has a compelling interest in regulating that activity.

Years ago, there would have been no compelling interest. There clearly is today.

However, there was an ad from an insurance company some years ago that stated, "In 190x, there were two cars in the entire state of Ohio. They collided."

Click to expand...

Ummm not in Washington state, you need a drivers license to drive on your own property.

cyras21 said:

I for one feel travel by which ever means is most common at the time is a right. There is a small group of activist challenging the issuance of drivers license as well as plates on cars.

Click to expand...

+1

I would understand it slightly if based on competency. But driving license is nothing but a revenue and law enforcement tool.

Natural rights by the way don't stop just because we use them with something we invented, naturally.

NavyLCDR said:

Citation please?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.001


When the state of Washington comes out and paves my driveway for me, with your tax dollars, I MIGHT consider opening my driveway for use of the public. Until then, no driver's license is required on my private property. AND my private property is NOT open to the use of the public, so don't get any ideas! :lol:

Click to expand...

Thanks John for pointing this out. I had talked to an attorney about this who informed me we are not a farm state that allows unlicensed driving on private property, but he may not be entirely correct. There is this law though, so I may only be correct in that if your license is suspended or revoked you can't drive on private property, since the law makes no exception.

[h=2]RCW 46.20.342[/h]

(1) It is unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle in this state while that person is in a suspended or revoked status or when his or her privilege to drive is suspended or revoked in this or any other state. Any person who has a valid Washington driver's license is not guilty of a violation of this section.

Click to expand...

stainless1911 said:

The ONLY reason that driving isnt a constitutional right, is because they didnt have cars and the necessity to travel in order to function at the time the constitution was written.

Try having a successful life without a car, good luck.

Click to expand...

Driving is Commercial, Travel is Non-commercial.
American Juris Prudence (Constitutional Law) says: You have the right to travel on foot, Horse drawn carriage, or Automobile.
Corpus Juris Secundum ( Constitutional Law) says: You have the right to travel on foot, Horse drawn carriage, Automobile, or
any excepted mode of transportation.
Word search ( Right to Travel ) and you will find a lot of Supreme Court case law.

How do people travel in this country?

Primarily.

Yes I know, some people still use horses.

They still shoot black powder, and live without electricity as well.

gutshot said:

Right to travel, not to drive.

Click to expand...

What authority does the state have to turn our inventions that make the right to travel easier a privilege?

By some folks reasoning the 1st amendment doesn't apply to modern means like, computers, television, and e-books?

18 U.S.C. Section 31: Definitions

(6) Motor Vehicle.- The term " motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

So that is a commercial activity on the highway which needs a license.

Every vehicle on the highway is not commercial, therefore you have the right to travel on the public highway without a license.

...and we have a winner.:monkey

It is really hard to educate closed minded people.

In a free country people will argue for government control/slavery most every time.
I exercise my rights I am not a CORPORATE CITIZEN....I have no licenses or permits
for anything.

" A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost "

you also live in a free country, for the most part. We don't.

The overwhelming majority of miles traveled in this country are not by a person driving a vehicle on a public byway. Air, rail, ship, public transportation, walking, biking, being a passenger while someone else drives, etc.

It is not the travel that is being licensed and regulated. It is the act of operating a motorized vehicle on a public byway, in and amongst all the other operators--and pedestrians, cyclists, taxis, busses, commercial truckers, etc., that is not a right but a privilege, one in which the government has a HUGE compelling interest to regulate. That act certainly adds convenience to travel, but is not necessary to it.

Get rid of your cars, and your little permission slip, see how things really work, and then get back with me. Mkay?