i went to a DUI checkpoint on thursday night

[Freedom1Man]

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

When was the government granted the power to convert a right in to a privilege?

The Wright brothers needed no license to fly.
Driving is defined as a commercial activity in Title 18 USC.

If I did not have the right to use the roads in the way they were intended then why were they built using money that I first earned?

As to flying, where did the government get the authority to turn flying into a privilege?

If I walk down the roads exercising my rights I can be, and have been, harassed by the police. I have to deal with sidewalk closures, regulated road crossings, jay walking charges (not ever been charged but they are on the books), and more. So if walking is a right then how can I be ticketed for walking along an interstate freeway?

I have the natural right to captain a sailing vessel if I so choose without the requirement of any government granted license (from my home country), permission can be required to sail into foreign ports but that is upon the port to determine.

As for flying, if I don't cause damage to the property of another then the government has no business telling me what I can or cannot do.
If I was doing it commercially to sell my services to the public THEN THAT is where regulation and licensing comes into play.

 

[marshaul]

Drunks do one of two things at stop signs, they either sit, or they run them. When we did DUI we would wait at a stop sign, it was almost 100% productive for arresting drunks. Just have to pick the right stop sign and the right time. We had a trooper who made over 400 arrests a year without using roadblocks.

I like that. It isn't based on some arbitrary "metric", but instead demonstrable evidence of impaired behavior.

 

[marshaul]

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.

Being armed is a right. Being armed with semi-automatic machinery in public spaces owned by governmental entities in and amongst others also armed with potentially dangerous weapons is a privilege.

 

[marshaul]

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...

Right. And what happens if I drive without "voluntarily" signing this "contract"?

You're reasoning in circles.

 

[Primus]

Right. And what happens if I drive without "voluntarily" signing this "contract"?

You're reasoning in circles.

Then you get arrested. That's because your equating travel with driving. I've listed other methods of travel. Walk run bicycle scooter pogo stick.

I get it. The disconnect is the drive car equals travel. So be it. Like I keep telling guys if its so clear cut then catch a case get arrested appeal and go right to supreme court. Make federal case law and free Americans everywhere. Plus you'll make money. It'd be the patriotic thing to do.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[marshaul]

Then you get arrested. That's because your equating travel with driving. I've listed other methods of travel. Walk run bicycle scooter pogo stick.

I get it. The disconnect is the drive car equals travel. So be it. Like I keep telling guys if its so clear cut then catch a case get arrested appeal and go right to supreme court. Make federal case law and free Americans everywhere. Plus you'll make money. It'd be the patriotic thing to do.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about your twisted definition of "voluntary."

Threat of arrest for noncompliance ≠ voluntary, period end of discussion.

 

[countryclubjoe]

I never suggested giving up rights. We already know that a police officers job is to collect evidence. I would not consent to a SB, and I am always sober. The fact is that drunks are easy to spot without SB, and it really is not necessary for roadblocks, they can easily avoid those. PC and nystagmus is all that I needed to arrest drunks. My problem with SB checks they are dangerous and the officer is responsible for the safety of the person doing them. A sober person can fail a SB, a drunk person can pass them, nystagmus cannot be faked or hidden. Nystagmus alone is not enough, but PC and nystagmus is enough for the courts, as long as the officer keeps a record.

Drunks do one of two things at stop signs, they either sit, or they run them. When we did DUI we would wait at a stop sign, it was almost 100% productive for arresting drunks. Just have to pick the right stop sign and the right time. We had a trooper who made over 400 arrests a year without using roadblocks.

Lucky for that trooper none of those crazy drunk drivers knocked his stop sign down.. God forbid he be assigned to a roadblock detail and have to share all those arrest with all the other troopers....

Best regards

CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

Then you get arrested. That's because your equating travel with driving. I've listed other methods of travel. Walk run bicycle scooter pogo stick.

I get it. The disconnect is the drive car equals travel. So be it. Like I keep telling guys if its so clear cut then catch a case get arrested appeal and go right to supreme court. Make federal case law and free Americans everywhere. Plus you'll make money. It'd be the patriotic thing to do.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

" Undoubtedly the right to locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination is an attribute of personal liberty and the right,ordinarily of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th A and by other provisions of the constitution".... Schactman v Dulles, 96 app D.C. 287,293

" Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often necessary to the well being of an American Citizen, such as Travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them,,, to repeat, we deal here with a Constitutional Right of a Citizen."
Edwards v Californial 314 US 160 (1941)

" The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question, the owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some vehicle"...

House v Creamer, 1 12 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907)

" Those things which considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be Licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege"

City of Chicago v Collins, 51 N.E. 907,910

" It is clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in a profession, business, trade or calling, Thus when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, No license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation"

Wingfield v Fielder ( 1972) 29 CA. 3D 213

" No statutory duty, lies to apply for, or to possess a drivers license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the " Class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted"

Routh v Quinn 20 Cal 2D 488

Need I say more?

My .02

Best regards.

CCJ

 

[eye95]

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.

Many, probably most, States do disallow 15yo to drive. States do take into account age when determining who can drive. They do reasonably not blanket disallow 90yo because some 90yo can drive very effectively. Some States do have provisions for elderly to reprove their skills, but do not discriminate indiscriminately against the elderly. Your post helps establish that driving is, indeed, a licensed privilege and some of the reasons why it should be! Thank you.

 

[eye95]

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?

A silly analogy that keeps coming up and may be disposed of easily. There is a RKBA. There is no RODMV.

The enumerated right to arms is essential to the GGONIYP right of life and its defense. The unenumerated privilege of operating tons of machinery on public byways in and amongst others also so operating is not essential to the GGONIYP right to travel.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Primus quit excusing your roadblocks and other intrusions onto liberty by statist judge decision.

 

[Primus]

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about your twisted definition of "voluntary."

Threat of arrest for noncompliance ≠ voluntary, period end of discussion.

Marshaul like I said... you voluntarily walk into the the rmv (or drive to I guess lol ). You voluntarily GI through an entire process which is actually pretty long in my state. It takes you weeks of drivers head and hours of driving on the road with an instructor. At any point to can say "all set". Maybe your assuming its not voluntary because everyone wants to drive? Not true... I personally have adult family members that don't drive. Never got their license. Its but uncommon. So again I see the process as voluntary. And eye covered how its any type of enumerated right.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Marshaul like I said... you voluntarily walk into the the rmv (or drive to I guess lol ). You voluntarily GI through an entire process which is actually pretty long in my state. It takes you weeks of drivers head and hours of driving on the road with an instructor. At any point to can say "all set". Maybe your assuming its not voluntary because everyone wants to drive? Not true... I personally have adult family members that don't drive. Never got their license. Its but uncommon. So again I see the process as voluntary. And eye covered how its any type of enumerated right.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Do you purposefully miss the point?

 

[Primus]

Do you purposefully miss the point?

No I purposely respond to guys who make individual assertations or ask questions.


We have been discussing whether the process of getting a license is voluntary. He made statement implying it was not voluntary. I responded that it was not. Its called a conversation. I got his point and he gets mine. We are/were still discussing the merits or validity of each side.

So relax. Please. Thank you.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So it wasn't on purpose......

 

[eye95]

Do you purposefully miss the point?

I am watching a discussion that is totally at cross-purposes. Both points are valid. They just simply do not address each other. That happens a lot here.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I am watching a discussion that is totally at cross-purposes. Both points are valid. They just simply do not address each other. That happens a lot here.

Granted, seems to happen way more with one poster though.....

 

[Primus]

I am watching a discussion that is totally at cross-purposes. Both points are valid. They just simply do not address each other. That happens a lot here.

Eye do you mean the voluntary non voluntary side thing? Again I agree its a side note and its not meant to derail the thread was just trying to address that issue.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[eye95]

I am watching essentially this argument:

A means C!

You are wrong! B means D!

 

[countryclubjoe]

" Undoubtedly the right to locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination is an attribute of personal liberty and the right,ordinarily of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th A and by other provisions of the constitution".... Schactman v Dulles, 96 app D.C. 287,293

" Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often necessary to the well being of an American Citizen, such as Travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them,,, to repeat, we deal here with a Constitutional Right of a Citizen."
Edwards v Californial 314 US 160 (1941)

" The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question, the owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some vehicle"...

House v Creamer, 1 12 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907)

" Those things which considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be Licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege"

City of Chicago v Collins, 51 N.E. 907,910

" It is clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in a profession, business, trade or calling, Thus when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, No license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation"

Wingfield v Fielder ( 1972) 29 CA. 3D 213

" No statutory duty, lies to apply for, or to possess a drivers license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the " Class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted"

Routh v Quinn 20 Cal 2D 488

Need I say more?

My .02

Best regards.

CCJ

The precedent has been established...

CCJ