J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
my point exactly.
my point exactly.
The difference is the difference between the privilege to drive a motorcar and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that is enumerated in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and that "shall not be infringed."When you drive a car you should know the laws and perhaps carry insurance. I don't see the difference when a person carries deadly force and intends to use it if required.
privilege to drive a motorcar
Citation, please. I'm not aware of any topic in the constitution that states or implies that the use of any conveyance is a right.privilege to drive a motorcar
Driving a motorcar is not a privilege. Its a right. The supreme court even verified that.
I know most of your government publication/drivers ed manual, etc says its a privilege. But its not.
On the contrary...Unfortunately I have to agree with you. It's been a few years since my law classes but if I recall correctly, the Supreme Court ruled driving is a privilege, not a right, and thus can be taken away/controlled by the government much more willy-nilly than rights can be. Again if I recall correctly, the case was related to an implied consent case. I can research it further if anyone really wants to know.
Bell v Burson
For many years, government considered a driver's license "a privilege — not a right", and thus there were few effective remedies available to a driver who wished to contest a suspension. The U.S. Supreme Court changed that, recognizing that a license's "continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood". Because of their value, then, they "are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment". Note: Were it not for Bell, it is doubtful that the California DMV today would provide hearings to contest DUI license suspensions. See also, Mackey v. Montrym (1979) 443 U.S. 1, involving a license suspension for refusing to submit to a DUI breath test.
“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.
Well we are playing semantics here, but a couple of thoughts.Like I said no matter what the courts say my opinion is that it is not a right.
Damn right they aren't.I mean to say is they are not treating it as a right.
The fact is that the only right, according to the Constitution, that shall not be infringed is the 2nd Amendment right.Well we are playing semantics here, but a couple of thoughts.Like I said no matter what the courts say my opinion is that it is not a right.
First, as I've said before. Rights are NOT granted by the government, so it REALLY doesn't matter what the government SAYS. WE HAVE as human beings the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. GOVERNMENT has no rights, government has only the power of the people collectively.
I would NEVER NEVER argue with you guys that ALMOST all of our rights are "rights infringed" or "rights denied"
But they ARE rights. (the government is just denying or infringing, and sometimes severely, upon them)