Maryland a scary place

[Fallschirjmäger]

Okay, state your case; what part of the court case applies?
(Sorry, but I will only reply to specifics, not a "read chapters 1 through 500 of SomeState Code to find the answer.)

 

[countryclubjoe]

Okay, state your case; what part of the court case applies?
(Sorry, but I will only reply to specifics, not a "read chapters 1 through 500 of SomeState Code to find the answer.)

I cited the court case for you, if you chose not to read and educated yourself, then so be it, that is your right...

Best regards.

CCJ

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I cited the court case for you, if you chose not to read and educated yourself, then so be it, that is your right...

Well, you won me over, I read the entire thing from start to finish, every word.

You're wrong.

Kindest regards
Chris.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

See, here's the way it works in a debate.
Any argument left unchallenged is allowed to stand. Saying "see the rules" is not a rebuttal. Saying "See rule 1.2(a)(i) is."

I made the argument and provided my sources. You now have the opportunity to rebut... or not, your choice.

 

[countryclubjoe]

See, here's the way it works in a debate.
Any argument left unchallenged is allowed to stand. Saying "see the rules" is not a rebuttal. Saying "See rule 1.2(a)(i) is."

I made the argument and provided my sources. You now have the opportunity to rebut... or not, your choice.

Falls

Its been a long time since I was in debate class however let me give it a try... First off, no one ever graduated from debate class by stating

You're wrong.... At least not any debate class that I graduated from. So I will expect you to opine a bit more so has to support your claim of "you're wrong"

I will support my arguments with Constitutional Case law precedent of which, I believe the United States Constitution trumps your Virginia statute and NJ title 39 argument.

Starting with the simplest to understand..

1- " 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 California, 314 US 160 (1941)

2- " 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 Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution"
Schactman v Dulles, 96 APP D.C. 287,293

3-" No statutory duty lies to apply for, or to possess a drivers license for personal travel and transportation as dependent is not within the " Class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted"
Routh v Quinn 20 Cal 2D 488

4-" Those things which are 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

Falls, something else for you to ponder.. " A law repugnant to the constitution is VOID"-- Justice John Marshall...
I guess you think he was wrong too...

If you intend to come to a debate on law, I suggest you have some legal precedent to assist you in arguing your points..

I look forward to future mooting..

Best regards.

CCJ

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

So, is it your position that the Constitution protects your right to operate a vehicle (travel) upon the public highways and byways free of any pesky state regulation?

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

230 F.2d 486: Evelyn Miller, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 230 F.2d 486
February 29, 1956
Evelyn Miller was convicted in a District court of knowingly and willfully obstructing, resisting and opposing a Deputy United States Marshal in his effort to serve a subpoena on Richard Morris in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1501.2.
Ms. Miller appealed the decision and it went before a Fifth Circuit Appeals court in 1956.
The court ruled that because Ms. Miller did not use or threaten force, her peaceful refusal to cooperate (and insistence with a search warrant) with the Marshals did not prove a charge of obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt and the case was returned to District court with a directed verdict to acquit.

This was not a "I'm free to drive on the roads any time, any manner, and any speed or direction I want" decision by the court.
It was a decision saying that non-cooperation is not the same thing as obstruction.

The "exercise of a right..."quote is extracted and bandied about a lot in certain discussions - mostly by those who have not read the decision.

 

[user]

My suggestion: do not travel to countries that do not enjoy the blessings of a civilized legal system. I do not cross the Potomac, myself.

 

[JamesCanby]

I agree with you, User, but I do not have the luxury of staying on the Virginia side of the Potomac. I have family, business and fraternal interests in TPR of Maryland and the wife and I enjoy too many cultural events in DC to avoid being there -- unarmed in both DC and MD.

That being said, I travel in a SUV with my NRA Life Member decal and the large orange VCDL "Guns Save Lives" magnet prominently displayed on the rear ... and I have never been stopped in either jurisdiction. Still, I mentally rehearse the appropriate statements and actions before every trip ... just in case ... and I carry your statement in my wallet in case I am actually detained. The situation is not optimal -- I would rather have unfettered carry everywhere -- but I at least feel prepared to deal effectively with the possible scenarios. Time will tell.