No Legislation Action until until the high court has a chance to hear the Case.

[Captain Nemo]

The regulations and restrictions concerning the operation of a Motor vehicle is an individual state power. The federal goverment has only minimum involvement, mostly in the regulation of interstate commerce and it's related motor vehicle transportation. Private use and operation rules of motor vehicles are in control of each individual state. For that reason the only case law pertinent to the discussion on whether or not the licensed operation of a motor vehicle in Wisconsin is a privilege or a right are those cases judicated by the Wisconsin court system. It is that case law which sets primary precident for prosecution in the Wisconsin court sytem. As I posted earlier. The Wisconsin district court of appeals for district II found in the 2002 case of Fond du Lac v. Kevin C. Dirksen that the operation of a motor vehicle is a state issued privilege. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in the 1978 opinion on Steeno v. State earlier found likewise. This is my final opinion on the subject.

I have belabored this subject because I feel that if the Chairman is the representative of our firearms rights and privlileges he must have a good understanding of the difference, especially as defined by the Wisconsin court system. It really doesn't matter what our indelible personal opinions are or, other than for comparison, what is the case law of other states. It is the Wisconsin court system that will judge our guilt or innocence.

 

[Spartacus]

So again you contradict yourself, You were a member of the patriotic and Sovereignty movement which would indicate that you would stand against government even in support of succeeding from the states. Yet today you would settle for a permit? Lying again!

Your just plain full of crap. It oozes out of every orifice of your body. You have ZERO credibility here.

Being a Sovereign Citizen has little to do with wanting succession from the FedGuv but emphasizes the importance of states rights and individual rights. Permitting by the state is no infringement on my 2A or A1S25 rights so it is of no consequence.

It is however cute to see the role reversal of Doug sitting and pooping on your shoulder now. You've grown up with the rest making a career out of bashing me. Good for you.

A recurring schtick often mistakenly attributed to Chip 'n Dale is the characters' alleged use of politeness: "After you," … "No, I insist, after you!" This gag, from the early-1900s Alphonse and Gaston comic strip, is used by another studio's characters: Warner Bros' Mac and Tosh as the Goofy Gophers.

It comes as no surprise that the puppetmaster is also an expert on cartoons and comic books. Right up his alley.

 

[Spartacus]

“The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocate//o, 416 P. 2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights.” Teche Lines v. Dan forth, 12 So. 2d 784, 787 (Miss.—1943). See also: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

Just because the states infringe a right. Just because the states regulate a right, just because SOME states deny some rights ALL together does NOT mean they are not rights.

I understand what you are saying Nik and I am familiar with virtually every case that has been used by the Sovereignty Movement to travel without licenses and permits to no avail.

I don't see having to get a permit to drive as a constitutional infringement any more than I see a permit to carry as an infringement. These are details left up to the states to regulate as they will and with good reason... there are many unfit drivers who would do much harm if there were not permitting. While the same may not be true concerning gun carry, it is certainly true of vehicular travel.

 

[J.Gleason]

Being a Sovereign Citizen has little to do with wanting succession from the FedGuv but emphasizes the importance of states rights and individual rights. Permitting by the state is no infringement on my 2A or A1S25 rights so it is of no consequence.

It is however cute to see the role reversal of Doug sitting and pooping on your shoulder now. You've grown up with the rest making a career out of bashing me. Good for you.



It comes as no surprise that the puppetmaster is also an expert on cartoons and comic books. Right up his alley.

Seems you have lost the horse power to pull your chariot.

 

[Spartacus]

Seems you have lost the horse power to pull your chariot.

Awww you are sooo witty.

 

[Spartacus]

livin' rent free in his head. LOLAY Tukhus Petard

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

 

[oak1971]

Like sands through the hourglass so go the days at OCDO....

Anyone want to talk about the topic?

Demand constitutional carry, compromise only if all else fails. Funding a permit system when the state is Billions in debt will only result in high permit fees.

 

[The Don]

Anyone want to talk about the topic[/B]

Most do, and are, from what I've been observing of the thread.

Demand constitutional carry, compromise only if all else fails. Funding a permit system when the state is Billions in debt will only result in high permit fees.

Anyway, that's exactly what we should be doing, and what many/most of us are pushing for.

I realize, as do most others I think, that compromise might be necessary. There's a world of difference, however, between realizing that possibility while still doing everything possible to get constitutional carry and those who seem to go the additional step of essentially saying it's pointless to try for constitutional carry because "it's too hard" and "a permit isn't really registration."

 

[Doug Huffman]

Wisconsin Concealed Carry Compromise

"Compromise only if all else fails." Yet compromise is already inculcated here.

It's not different from the Obamanation enjoying the respite from combat and KIA's in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we all wait for the promised withdrawal date, and touting any change as their great success. All to save face, painted on with media ink and hyperbolic smoke.

 

[Captain Nemo]

Correct, some measure of compromise may be inevitable but don't even hint at compromise until there is no other course. Premature hint of compromise is a show of weakness.

 

[davegran]

We are watching....

Our new Republican legislators need to understand that we threw out the Democrats for not representing the will of the people and we will throw them out too, if need be.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Yes, except 'we' reelected pro-gun control RINOs again. They've been in office for years without substantively addressing gun-control.

The challenge must be that 'they' send us a pound of Second Amendment flesh from nearest their heart or we elect their opponent even if it is A. Shickelgruber. We have loaned out our trust too cheaply and are calling the loan.

 

[J.Gleason]

Wow. Again with sh!tbirding Gleason, eh?

Things sure have changed around here. Of course his thoughts are more original than yours so it does kind of make sense.

We will see when we meet in person, maybe it will liven up an event. I am sure the media will love it.

 

[Nutczak]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

Gee, imagine that!!
Is anything else different? I am also looking forward to the day when I get to stand toe to toe with the forums "special" detractor.