-
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.
-
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.
Can't Require a License to Exercise a Right
- Thread starter Aknazer
- Start date
I consider you a friend and I know, first hand, that you are a stand up guy in matters of gun rights. No insult was intended and I apologize if that was the tone that I conveyed in my message.
eye95
Well-known member
Anyone who says we have to have licenses to drive should read this thread: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...RIGHT-TO-TRAVEL-Defined-Legal-style&p=1496229
MyWifeSaidYes
Regular Member
When did you give up your driver license, Protias?
I'm all for open carry, but I find it hard to get behind 'sovereign citizens'.
I'm all for open carry, but I find it hard to get behind 'sovereign citizens'.
Well, since the "almighty government" said I need a "mother may I" card, I have that. Just because the government says you have to jump through these hoops doesn't make it right.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
What issues do you have with so called " Sovereign Citizens" ?
I see that theses SC are a major pain for goverment and local LE and there are some that are radical. However there supporters are just regular folks exercising there rights. They are also familiar with our court system and they seem ready and able to stand up for there God given rights and there constitutional rights.
Thank you in advance for your reply.
CCJ
MyWifeSaidYes
Regular Member
If you think they are standing up for their Constitutional rights, you do not understand what the Sovereign Citizen movement is about.
A sovereign citizen rejects the authority of any government, federal, state or local.
Here is a link to a Wikipedia article about them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Citizen_Movement
And here is something quite fresh:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/waw/press/2013/May/leaming.html
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
If you think they are standing up for their Constitutional rights, you do not understand what the Sovereign Citizen movement is about.
A sovereign citizen rejects the authority of any government, federal, state or local.
Here is a link to a Wikipedia article about them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Citizen_Movement
And here is something quite fresh:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/waw/press/2013/May/leaming.html
Thanks for the reply.
CCJ
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
I don't agree that the state or local gov agency should require a license/fee from me to walk my dog or go fish in the local lake. So I guess I would be labeled a SC.
Goverment labeling citizens,citizens that don't feel its right to be charged a fee or need a license or enter into a contract. That citizen must be a SC. No gun permit for that SC person- REJECTED.
Beware of goverment labeling not some SC.
CCJ
Goverment labeling citizens,citizens that don't feel its right to be charged a fee or need a license or enter into a contract. That citizen must be a SC. No gun permit for that SC person- REJECTED.
Beware of goverment labeling not some SC.
CCJ
eye95
Well-known member
There is a difference between believing that a government should not do something and believing that it does not have the authority to do it.
I do not believe that government should license concealment. I believe (even though it does not have the authority to license carry) that it has the authority to license concealment.
If you are saying that even the local government cannot ever have the authority to license your dog, then you are a sovereign citizen. If you say that it can, but it shouldn't, then you are the same kind of liberal as the Framers (a conservative or a libertarian in today's terminology).
Sovereign citizens are just anarchists. They believe that government has no authority to do anything. The two might insist there are differences. Whatever differences there are are inconsequential. Both philosophies are pie-in-the-sky, unworkable idealism. Were we to achieve a level of lack of government that would even come close to making these folks happy, we'd have less Liberty than we have now, as bullying by individuals and gangs would become the norm. Good, honest folks would band together for their protection. One or two would take charge of the group, and most would readily accept this internal bullying for protection from the external bullying.
A government, properly structured, given authority by the People, is (ironically) the only way to preserve Liberty. The Framers hit upon the best model yet. It is because we have strayed from that model that we experience government taking authority it was not given.
The key features of that model:
1. Separation of powers horizontally.
2. Separation of powers vertically.
3. Power is granted vertically, from the bottom up.
4. Power is granted least at the top, most at the bottom.
Where we have gotten away from this model:
1. Power is collecting at the top.
2. Power is being granted vertically from the top down.
3. Power is no longer separated vertically (see #2).
4. Horizontal separations are being ignored.
The most key feature of the model was that government was republican. It is now democratic. To preserve a maximum of Liberty requires that we restore federalism and republicanism. It was an ingenious system, but it still required the vigilance of the People to preserve it: as Franklin so wisely informed that lady.
I do not believe that government should license concealment. I believe (even though it does not have the authority to license carry) that it has the authority to license concealment.
If you are saying that even the local government cannot ever have the authority to license your dog, then you are a sovereign citizen. If you say that it can, but it shouldn't, then you are the same kind of liberal as the Framers (a conservative or a libertarian in today's terminology).
Sovereign citizens are just anarchists. They believe that government has no authority to do anything. The two might insist there are differences. Whatever differences there are are inconsequential. Both philosophies are pie-in-the-sky, unworkable idealism. Were we to achieve a level of lack of government that would even come close to making these folks happy, we'd have less Liberty than we have now, as bullying by individuals and gangs would become the norm. Good, honest folks would band together for their protection. One or two would take charge of the group, and most would readily accept this internal bullying for protection from the external bullying.
A government, properly structured, given authority by the People, is (ironically) the only way to preserve Liberty. The Framers hit upon the best model yet. It is because we have strayed from that model that we experience government taking authority it was not given.
The key features of that model:
1. Separation of powers horizontally.
2. Separation of powers vertically.
3. Power is granted vertically, from the bottom up.
4. Power is granted least at the top, most at the bottom.
Where we have gotten away from this model:
1. Power is collecting at the top.
2. Power is being granted vertically from the top down.
3. Power is no longer separated vertically (see #2).
4. Horizontal separations are being ignored.
The most key feature of the model was that government was republican. It is now democratic. To preserve a maximum of Liberty requires that we restore federalism and republicanism. It was an ingenious system, but it still required the vigilance of the People to preserve it: as Franklin so wisely informed that lady.
There's alot of good stuff in your post but I'm running late so I'll respond to the glaring negative...
That blanket statement is false. There are plenty of people, myself included, who say and believe that the government lacks legitimate authority to do some of what it currently does. Heck, IIRC, I've heard Andrew Napolitano make the statement from time to time. I've known real Sovereign Citizens (some good men, some not so good) and that is not the end all of the definition.
These are some wide brushes. Combining this statement and the other one, do you realize how many "sovereign citizen 'anarchists'" that you've been demonstrating with? By your definition; I'm one, the 'Pope' is, and many people that I've met or already knew at these events are. So, using the 'Kokesh model' of guilt by association derived from what you've posted before, how does that all pan out? Aren't you then protesting with anarchists and therefore an anarchist yourself?
MyWifeSaidYes
Regular Member
Sovereign Citizens have been in the news for...
...not paying taxes because the government has no authority to tax them.
...not registering their vehicles because local/state/federal laws do not apply to them.
...not obtaining drivers licenses because local/state/federal laws do not apply to them.
...illegally concealing firearms because local/state/federal laws do not apply to them.
...submitting false liens and other court documents.
...threatening judges and legislators with physical violence, in writing.
Those are the Sovereign Citizens of which I cannot support.
If someone who thinks the government needs to change things, they are simply a CITIZEN.
...not paying taxes because the government has no authority to tax them.
...not registering their vehicles because local/state/federal laws do not apply to them.
...not obtaining drivers licenses because local/state/federal laws do not apply to them.
...illegally concealing firearms because local/state/federal laws do not apply to them.
...submitting false liens and other court documents.
...threatening judges and legislators with physical violence, in writing.
Those are the Sovereign Citizens of which I cannot support.
If someone who thinks the government needs to change things, they are simply a CITIZEN.
BTW: I'm not standing in defense of SCs. Some of their arguments sound silly to me (sort of like 'magical incantations'). But, I won't publicly ridicule them and certainly am not fearful of their chosen method to remain free.
Also, please remember that not all of the 'tax freedom' folks are SCs; not all of the 'right to travel' folks are SCs; etc... The difference is that upon which they base their argument. We've had some individuals driving around here with handmade license plates and no operator's licenses. Some were Sovereign Citizens and some were not. None of them had an arrest or ticket stick to them as a result of their 'right to travel' activities. Eventually the local authorities give up.
Also, please remember that not all of the 'tax freedom' folks are SCs; not all of the 'right to travel' folks are SCs; etc... The difference is that upon which they base their argument. We've had some individuals driving around here with handmade license plates and no operator's licenses. Some were Sovereign Citizens and some were not. None of them had an arrest or ticket stick to them as a result of their 'right to travel' activities. Eventually the local authorities give up.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
BTW: I'm not standing in defense of SCs. Some of their arguments sound silly to me (sort of like 'magical incantations'). But, I won't publicly ridicule them and certainly am not fearful of their chosen method to remain free.
Also, please remember that not all of the 'tax freedom' folks are SCs; not all of the 'right to travel' folks are SCs; etc... The difference is that upon which they base their argument. We've had some individuals driving around here with handmade license plates and no operator's licenses. Some were Sovereign Citizens and some were not. None of them had an arrest or ticket stick to them as a result of their 'right to travel' activities. Eventually the local authorities give up.
Hi JmE- The folks that you say are driving without licenses and so called legal state registration etc, what defense did they use in the kangaroo traffic court? I would be interested on reading there defense motions.
TIA
Best regards
CCJ
It's been some time... I don't remember except that it's the same 'right to travel' stuff that I've seen on the internet. It reads like the old printed stuff that's been carried over to electronic media. I do know that it's all out there on the web as I sometimes (once in a blue moon) surf around and read some of the material again. Sorry that I can't be of more help (and it would probably violate the rules/TOS if I did post anything about it ).
ETA: It's based on the fact that one is traveling in their machine as opposed to 'driving' or 'operating' it. i.e. commercial versus private/non-commercial
).ETA: It's based on the fact that one is traveling in their machine as opposed to 'driving' or 'operating' it. i.e. commercial versus private/non-commercial
Last edited:
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Why would anyone willfully enter into a contract with a goverment agency like DMV, IRS, SSA etc?
The answer, FEAR, fear of jail, fear of fines and penalties.
or Ignorance, ignorance of your right not to contract or do business with anyone, let alone a goverment agency like the agency's mentioned above that only exist to tax your money, impose fines and penalties threaten you with incarceration etc.
Understanding your constitutional rights and a study of contract law should put your mind in the right place.
When your minds in the right place then you will lose your fear and not be ignorant of your rights.
TIA
Best regards
CCJ
The answer, FEAR, fear of jail, fear of fines and penalties.
or Ignorance, ignorance of your right not to contract or do business with anyone, let alone a goverment agency like the agency's mentioned above that only exist to tax your money, impose fines and penalties threaten you with incarceration etc.
Understanding your constitutional rights and a study of contract law should put your mind in the right place.
When your minds in the right place then you will lose your fear and not be ignorant of your rights.
TIA
Best regards
CCJ
Last edited:
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Hi JmE- Thank you for your reply. I am familiar with the conventional arguments.It's been some time... I don't remember except that it's the same 'right to travel' stuff that I've seen on the internet. It reads like the old printed stuff that's been carried over to electronic media. I do know that it's all out there on the web as I sometimes (once in a blue moon) surf around and read some of the material again. Sorry that I can't be of more help (and it would probably violate the rules/TOS if I did post anything about it
ETA: It's based on the fact that one is traveling in their machine as opposed to 'driving' or 'operating' it. i.e. commercial versus private/non-commercial
I was just curious if there were any new arguments that worked in the local kangaroo/traffic courts.
One key that I found for a traffic court is just file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with a short brief referencing constitutional law and contract law.( If the violation is for driving without a license/reg etc only). Other violations would need to be defended differently.
Best regards.
CCJ
Last edited:
ron73440
Regular Member
The top four you listed would be totally acceptable in a perfect world, but the government at all levels has too much power for me to attempt them, no matter how much I think they shouldn't be enforced.
The bottom two seem more like general dirtbag behavior.