i went to a DUI checkpoint on thursday night

[countryclubjoe]

Its not a violation of anything because you sign a contract when you receive your license ( in ma). The paperwork you fill out and sign states that you are subject to suspension if you dont submit to breathalyzer. License is a privilege not a right and its a contract your in and sign for.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Thank you, you basically are supporting all my arguments that the State is forcing a citizen to enter into a contract for a privilege to travel, you say driving or in LEO talk, operating a motor vehicle, I say TRAVELING.
The state will threaten you with violence and incarceration if you decide to travel via an automobile before entering into a contract, a contract that strips you of your rights under the 4th, 5th and 14A.. Somehow this forcing/stripping seems unconstitutional to me, again, I am just using common sense and thinking outside the box. Also for a contract to be enforceable both parties must enter into said contract with clean hands and also not under duress and the terms of the contract must be explained to both parties. So I ask, when was the last time the clerk at the DMV office explained the bylaws of the contract that the DMV/state and citizen entered into? Do I need to answer? How many folks on this site do you think would surrender their rights under the 4th 5th and 14A for a mere so called driving license privilege assuming they were made aware of the language of the bogus contract? I would guess, zero, and I apologize for speaking for others, now threaten those same folks with violence and incarceration and without explaining their rights under the bogus contract, yes, the number will no longer be zero. Tyrants (there goes that word again) strip liberties via fear and ignorance...

My .02

Best regards

CCJ

 

[onus]

Cummon, what possible bald beardless assertion could satisfy your request?Then you would demand a citation from the mayor, and the governor and the president, O'Bummer, in infinite regress. The interwebz are equalitarian. Deny it as you will, anus is equal to Obama.

A simple name and agency of employment would work. Its public information anyway.

Don't worry, there are no active duty police on this forum.

There are some fakers though.

 

[eye95]

Thank you, you basically are supporting all my arguments that the State is forcing a citizen to enter into a contract for a privilege to travel...

Best regards

CCJ

Travel is a right. Operating heavy machinery on byways owned by governmental entities in and amongst others also operating potentially dangerous equipment is a privilege.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

A simple name and agency of employment would work. Its public information anyway.

Don't worry, there are no active duty police on this forum.

There are some fakers though.

Now you have just accused every poster who says he is a cop (there are several) of being a faker.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Primus]

Thank you for the cite. I do appreciate it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

Travel is a right. Operating heavy machinery on byways owned by governmental entities in and amongst others also operating potentially dangerous equipment is a privilege.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

+1

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[davidmcbeth]

Travel is a right. Operating heavy machinery on byways owned by governmental entities in and amongst others also operating potentially dangerous equipment is a privilege.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

you have been duped ... like every activity we take that could result in injury from negligence must be regulated

 

[countryclubjoe]

Travel is a right. Operating heavy machinery on byways owned by governmental entities in and amongst others also operating potentially dangerous equipment is a privilege.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I agree travel is indeed a right and therefore NO License should be required unless for commercial purposes.

I posted case law to support my argument in another thread.. While you on the other hand have not presented any legal precedent to support your claim.

Eye95, I understand your fear of violence and incarceration from the state agency, however I cannot comprehend your ignorance regarding your natural rights...

My .02

Best regards

CCJ

 

[eye95]

The natural right is the right to travel. Please stop implying that I do not understand that right.

Driving a car is not solely travel. It has other components that the State is reasonable to regulate--including the requirement for licensure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[countryclubjoe]

Now you have just accused every poster who says he is a cop (there are several) of being a faker.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Do wannabe cops count?

CCJ

 

[77zach]

Travel is a right. Operating heavy machinery on byways owned by governmental entities in and amongst others also operating potentially dangerous equipment is a privilege.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

In this case, largely a distinction without a difference. You're implying (assuming you're making the state's excuse) it takes a greater than average amount of skill to operate dangerous equipment in a reasonably safe manner. If this were the case, we would not allow 15 years olds ( many of whose spacial-motor skills are not quite fully developed) and 90 year olds and double amputees to drive. The truth of the matter, of course, is that self preservation and parental love make driving "tests" unnecessary. Otherwise, we would not allow epileptics or diabetics to drive, since their ability to drive can change dramatically and suddenly

Now, we have unwisely given the government control of the roads, but under common sense, we shouldn't have to give up our rights to perform an action that's pretty much necessary for life in this society.

 

[countryclubjoe]

in this case, largely a distinction without a difference. You're implying (assuming you're making the state's excuse) it takes a greater than average amount of skill to operate dangerous equipment in a reasonably safe manner. If this were the case, we would not allow 15 years olds ( many of whose spacial-motor skills are not quite fully developed) and 90 year olds and double amputees to drive. The truth of the matter, of course, is that self preservation and parental love make driving "tests" unnecessary. Otherwise, we would not allow epileptics or diabetics to drive, since their ability to drive can change dramatically and suddenly

now, we have unwisely given the government control of the roads, but under common sense, we shouldn't have to give up our rights to perform an action that's pretty much necessary for life in this society.

+1

ccj

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I'd just like to reiterate the fact that following the law is not an effective means of protecting yourself from intrusive and/or tyrannical government action.

Also, restrictions on driving being justified using as exercise of property rights presumes the state/government entity legitimately owns the roads, and that is contested. I do not accept that premise, so that argument is not acceptable to me. I'd venture to guess that anyone with a fundamental understanding of property rights and the methods with which governmental entities acquire property would also have some issues accepting that premise unquestioned.

 

[77zach]

I'd just like to reiterate the fact that following the law is not an effective means of protecting yourself from intrusive and/or tyrannical government action.

Also, restrictions on driving being justified using as exercise of property rights presumes the state/government entity legitimately owns the roads, and that is contested. I do not accept that premise, so that argument is not acceptable to me. I'd venture to guess that anyone with a fundamental understanding of property rights and the methods with which governmental entities acquire property would also have some issues accepting that premise unquestioned.

Absolutely, the state does not acquire property by normal means.

I would also ask Eye95: Do you believe government should be able ban carrying firearms on public sidewalks, parks, or say, the DMV?

 

[Primus]

Do you have a right to fly a plane? Operate a nuclear sub? Or a 7000lb vehicle at 85 mph? How about a 3000 lb vehicle at 10mph? Is it a natural right to operate a cruise ship across the ocean? ( a row boat yes just like a you can a bicycle). Some are going to scream appeal to emotion or some other fancy term for a an argument.

The result is the population understands that if you want to drive a piece of heavy equipment (is say 2 to 3 tons is heavy) then you need a license. Said license is to make sure you understand. Basic traffic laws that are designed to safely manage the couple millions vehicles on the road. Have you ever been to some place like Iraq? Where they have no rmv or license process? Try downtown Baghdad at rush hour. Its crappy for many reasons.

The legal reason is simply that you are in a contract to receive your license. Period. You may hate it and think its unconstitutional. I'll say the same thing then you can drive unlicensed get caught in a state in the northeast and fight it on grounds of your right to travel.

I'll be the first (before anyone votes stories about their dismissals) to tell you the courts don't give a fig about unlicensed operation. I've lost count how many I've cited and there's never been a conviction. They dismiss along with duis and everything else. Now suspended license..... I've had a guy serve time on that one (based on another open case). Point is you need a license. To not have a license is illegal. We can discuss if that's how it should be all we want but it still is.... good luck guys be safe

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Citizen]

Do you have a right to fly a plane? Operate a nuclear sub? Or a 7000lb vehicle at 85 mph? How about a 3000 lb vehicle at 10mph? Is it a natural right to operate a cruise ship across the ocean? ( a row boat yes just like a you can a bicycle). Some are going to scream appeal to emotion or some other fancy term for a an argument.

The result is the population understands that if you want to drive a piece of heavy equipment (is say 2 to 3 tons is heavy) then you need a license. Said license is to make sure you understand. Basic traffic laws that are designed to safely manage the couple millions vehicles on the road. Have you ever been to some place like Iraq? Where they have no rmv or license process? Try downtown Baghdad at rush hour. Its crappy for many reasons.

The legal reason is simply that you are in a contract to receive your license. Period. You may hate it and think its unconstitutional. I'll say the same thing then you can drive unlicensed get caught in a state in the northeast and fight it on grounds of your right to travel.

I'll be the first (before anyone votes stories about their dismissals) to tell you the courts don't give a fig about unlicensed operation. I've lost count how many I've cited and there's never been a conviction. They dismiss along with duis and everything else. Now suspended license..... I've had a guy serve time on that one (based on another open case). Point is you need a license. To not have a license is illegal. We can discuss if that's how it should be all we want but it still is.... good luck guys be safe

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Yeah, right. Contract. Suuuuure.

Is this like your argument that there is no threat of force regarding paying taxes?

A contract you are forced into is no contract.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I'll be the first (before anyone votes stories about their dismissals) to tell you the courts don't give a fig about unlicensed operation. I've lost count how many I've cited and there's never been a conviction. They dismiss along with duis and everything else. Now suspended license..... I've had a guy serve time on that one (based on another open case). Point is you need a license. To not have a license is illegal. We can discuss if that's how it should be all we want but it still is.... good luck guys be safe

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Tautological argument. No one is saying it isn't illegal.

Plus, they are discussing whether it should be illegal. You reverting back to is just saying, "But, it is illegal. That's the way it is. So, shut up."

 

[Primus]

Yeah, right. Contract. Suuuuure.

Is this like your argument that there is no threat of force regarding paying taxes?

A contract you are forced into is no contract.

Citizen I'd be more apt to believe taxes are less of a contract. You have to pay taxes by living here and working. To get a license you literally have to voluntarily walk into an rmv literally fill out said paperwork. Attend a drivers end class where they tell you the rules and explain DUI laws. Then you can finally go for your test and sign for your license. And I'm pretty positive (I'll see if I can grab a copy) that said paper work clearly says that by receiving license you agree that your liable to lose it if you don't blow on breathalyzer. That really is a contract. Its not a sudo contract or a kinda contract. If you don't enter said contract no one will hassle you. Ever. Unless you drive. You can walk run ride a bike ride a lawn mower fly on a plane row a boat etc. Etc. Just can't drive...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

I agree travel is indeed a right and therefore NO License should be required unless for commercial purposes.

I posted case law to support my argument in another thread.. While you on the other hand have not presented any legal precedent to support your claim.

Eye95, I understand your fear of violence and incarceration from the state agency, however I cannot comprehend your ignorance regarding your natural rights...

My .02

Best regards

CCJ

It comes from a trust of a government.

I am in your court for this CCJ. He has seemed to support the government control over everything.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/driver_licensing.htm

In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is:
"a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203.

 

[Freedom1Man]

RCW 46.04.197
Highway.


Highway means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

[1965 ex.s. c 155 § 87. Formerly RCW 46.04.431.]

Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18

Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word "traffic" (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a "privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.

RCW 47.04.010
Definitions.
(11) "Highway." Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns;

It affirms in the law that I have a RIGHT to use the public highways for vehicular travel. Since it's a right no license required..

So those who think that it's okay to require a license to use the public highways need only remember that parents used to determine what was old enough to drive a team of horses pulling a load behind them without brakes. If you're going to keep insisting that license can be required to use the public highways, think about a wagon team going down the roads today. I would love to hear you crying about it.