# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  Georgia Bill RESTORES RIGHT TO TRAVEL REPEALS DRIVERS LICENSE LAWS

## mrsat_98

Now that I have your attention can we please get to the bottom of this.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2...text/hb875.htm

10 LC 34 2350
House Bill 875
By: Representative Franklin of the 43rd

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT


To amend Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, so as to repeal Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses; provide for a short title; to report the findings of the General Assembly regarding the constitutionality of certain laws relating to drivers' licenses; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Travel Act."

SECTION 2.
The General Assembly finds that:
(1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;
(2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta:
It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.
(3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Georgia are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights;
(4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel;
(5) In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel "is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association...it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights;
(6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and decent manner; and
(7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and convert that right into a privilege.

SECTION 3.
Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, is amended by repealing Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses, and designating said chapter as reserved.

SECTION 4.
This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.

SECTION 5.
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
Live Broadcast | Legislative Search | Find Your Legislator | FAQ | Help | Previous Sessions
Georgia Code | State Departments
This information is provided in electronic format by the Georgia general Assembly as a public service. This information does not constitute an official record of the General Assembly and no warranty or guarantee of any kind is provided.

----------


## mrsat_98

http://www.google.com/unclesam?hl=en...22&btnG=Search

----------


## nobody's_hero

Bobby Franklin, what a statesman! 

I can identify any legislation he's drafted without even needing to look for his name. You know, this was the guy who wanted to tax the Federal Reserve in ATL on the basis that 'if it were a private bank, it should be susceptible to the same tax laws as any local community bank' (of course, being the chameleon of convenience that the Fed is, they changed their tune and said it wasn't private and basically, that it was above the law). 

It was a great idea, though.

----------


## phill4paul



----------


## BuddyRey

Sounds like a great bill!  Can it pass?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Constitutional rights?

----------


## FrankRep

That would be interesting. I'm shocked.

----------


## WaltM

good way to attract wreckless drivers, drunk drivers, illegal aliens and irresponsible teens.

now who has any legal authority to stop a person from driving?

----------


## CCTelander

> good way to attract wreckless drivers, drunk drivers, illegal aliens and irresponsible teens.
> 
> now who has any legal authority to stop a person from driving?


Much like respecting the fundamental right to own and carry firearms for self-defense is a good way to attract robbers, murderers, and irresponsible gun owners?

Freedom entails certain risks.

----------


## eOs

> Much like respecting the fundamental right to own and carry firearms for self-defense is a good way to attract robbers, murderers, and irresponsible gun owners?
> 
> Freedom entails certain risks.


More like endangering the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of those who will now fall prey to the countless people whose licenses were taken away for that very thing? Believe it or not, fines, license revocation, and breathe analyzers in cars really do keep people off of the road contrary to the weak counter argument of "they'll do it anyway."

----------


## CCTelander

> More like endangering the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of those who will now fall prey to the countless people whose licenses were taken away for that very thing? Believe it or not, fines, license revocation, and breathe analyzers in cars really do keep people off of the road contrary to the weak counter argument of "they'll do it anyway."


And Mussolini's facism kept the trains running on time. So what?

Either you support liberty, regardless of the risks involved, or you don't.

Trotting out the usual parade of horribles, much like anti-self-defense advocates routinely do, does not constitute a credible argument, btw. It's just blatant fear mongering in support of a clearly anti-liberty position.

----------


## eOs

> And Mussolini's facism kept the trains running on time. So what?
> 
> Either you support liberty, regardless of the risks involved, or you don't.
> 
> Trotting out the usual parade of horribles, much like anti-self-defense advocates routinely do, does not constitute a credible argument, btw. It's just blatant fear mongering in support of a clearly anti-liberty position.


Liberty for who? The idiotic drunkard driving on the road or the family who gets hit by him? Seems to me like you've got your definition of liberty a little mixed up. While you'd rather support the mad man's right to take someone's life because you feel he is entitled to drive no matter his previous driving record, I choose to support the freedom of individuals in their right not to die by pragmatic preventative measures. And while drunk driving homicide rates are high, it'd be tenfold without licenses.

----------


## CCTelander

> Liberty for who? The idiotic drunkard driving on the road or the family who gets hit by him? Seems to me like you've got your definition of liberty a little mixed up. While you'd rather support the mad man's right to take someone's life because you feel he is entitled to drive no matter his previous driving record, I choose to support the freedom of individuals in their right not to die by pragmatic preventative measures. And while drunk driving homicide rates are high, it'd be tenfold without licenses.


No sir, it is you who are confused.

You don't get to trample on MY liberty so you can secure that warm, fuzzy illusion of "safety" that you so obviously desire.

You don't get to trample MY liberty, by making the _a priori_ assumption that I will, or may, do something irresponsible just because there are others out there who actually do.

You don't get to use violence and theft against ME just because you can point to someone else's misuise of their liberty.

If you want to curtail drunk driving or irresponsible teenaged drivers, there are ways of doing so WITHOUT violating MY rights, and the rights of the overwhelming majority of others who are NOT irresponsible.

Taking any other approach is purely anti-liberty, and evil.

----------


## eOs

> No sir, it is you who are confused.
> 
> You don't get to trample on MY liberty so you can secure that warm, fuzzy illusion of "safety" that you so obviously desire.
> 
> You don't get to trample MY liberty, by making the _a priori_ assumption that I will, or may, do something irresponsible just because there are others out there who actually do.
> 
> You don't get to use violence and theft against ME just because you can point to someone else's misuise of their liberty.
> 
> If you want to curtail drunk driving or irresponsible teenaged drivers, there are ways of doing so WITHOUT violating MY rights, and the rights of the overwhelming majority of others who are NOT irresponsible.
> ...


Guess we'll have to just agree to disagree then. I'd suggest taking an online course on how to live with others though. Your philosophy truly does contain flaws in reality.

----------


## CCTelander

> Guess we'll have to just agree to disagree then. I'd suggest taking an online course on how to live with others though. Your philosophy truly does contain flaws in reality.


Thank you for the suggestion. I'll certainly give it every bit of consideration that it's due.

I might make a suugestion for you as well. You might find it edifying to look into the concept of prior restraint. 

Have a nice day!

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> good way to attract wreckless drivers, drunk drivers, illegal aliens and irresponsible teens.


Nothing like a little strawman to make your argument. Post fail. 




> now who has any legal authority to stop a person from driving?


Travel is a right, not a privilege.

----------


## CCTelander

> Nothing like a little strawman to make your argument. Post fail.



Similarly to anti-gunners, that's about all they've got on this one.





> Travel is a right, not a privilege.



QFT!

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

When you get into travel the statists come out in full force.

Government intervention can't prevent people from doing bad things... except driving.

----------


## CCTelander

> When you get into travel the statists come out in full force.
> 
> Government intervention can't prevent people from doing bad things... except driving.


Naturally. People almost always create endless rationalizations and justifications to explain why their position is "right," even though if completely violates what they claim to hold as fundamental principles.

Those who actually do care about liberty will eventually come around. The rest, well...

----------


## eOs

> When you get into travel the statists come out in full force.
> 
> Government intervention can't prevent people from doing bad things... except driving.


You've got money for a plane ticket? I hear the amazon jungle is full of freedom, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and live out your dream of unimpeded recklessness and disregard for human safety there? 


> Immigrants value creating a better life enough to actually move. A lot of people talk about state rights but no one wants to move.

----------


## Danke

Silly bill. Many court cases including the Supreme Court have repeatedly backed up the right to travel outside of government regulation.

_Driving_ is a government privilege, just stick to traveling in your private conveyance.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> You've got money for a plane ticket? I hear the amazon jungle is full of freedom, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and live out your dream of unimpeded recklessness and disregard for human safety there?


There are all ready laws against destruction of private property, and bodily harm to another. Your license fees, taxes, and other laws are redundant and anti-liberty. You don't need a license to keep drunk drivers off the road. Once they have to pay 20,000$+ in damages I'd doubt they'll be driving for quite a while, or going to jail for years for manslaughter. Besides, the arbitrary alcohol tests are patently absurd. Not everyone has the same alcohol tolerance. I know a few people who can drive better than most people sober with .10 levels (They drink a lot lol). 

While we are on this subject, I wonder if this man will introduce legislation to fully privatize the transportation system and eliminate all regulation of said privatization (otherwise, its not really private, but Fascistic). Regulation does not mean by the way -- violations of Natural Law (Property -- body & inanimate + pets ). 

Incidentally, road fatalities would drastically decline if everything was privatized and left to the Market. You should really read Block's Privatization of the Roads & Highways. The State transportation system kills more people every year than just about anything else. It's time the State stops killing people (as they are the managers of said system).

----------


## CCTelander

> Incidentally, road fatalities would drastically decline if everything was privatized and left to the Market. You should really read Block's Privatization of the Roads & Highways. The State transportation system kills more people every year than just about anything else. It's time the State stops killing people (as they are the managers of said system).


While this is absolutely true, I seriously doubt facts will have any effect on those who imagine that state violence against innocents somehow makes them safer. Sad but true.

----------


## WaltM

> Nothing like a little strawman to make your argument. Post fail. 
> 
> 
> 
> Travel is a right, not a privilege.


if it's a strawman, correct me.

how is it not true?

travel is not a right, just like trespassing is not a right. 

you have no right to travel on other people's property, so the public has every right to say you can't travel, or must travel by certain means they allow.

----------


## WaltM

> Much like respecting the fundamental right to own and carry firearms for self-defense is a good way to attract robbers, murderers, and irresponsible gun owners?


where does your right to self defense end? Are you allowed to own nuclear bombs? 

what's the maximum amount of ammo for self defense? At what point does "self defense" fail to account for excessive ownership, possession and usage of firearms?

*
Freedom entails certain risks*.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Some of which I'd lose to lose.

----------


## Danke

> if it's a strawman, correct me.
> 
> how is it not true?
> 
> travel is not a right, just like trespassing is not a right. 
> 
> you have no right to travel on other people's property, so the public has every right to say you can't travel, or must travel by certain means they allow.


Is breathing a right?  Do you have the right to use the public's air?

----------


## WaltM

> Silly bill. Many court cases including the Supreme Court have repeatedly backed up the right to travel outside of government regulation.
> *
> Driving is a government privilege, just stick to traveling in your private conveyance*.


exactly.

more specifically, driving on public roads is a government privilege. 

I can't imagine the government saying you can't drive your own car on your own land, unless there's a safety and environmental concern.

----------


## WaltM

> Is breathing a right?  Do you have the right to use the public's air?


I have no right to use anything that's owned by somebody else. (Trick : as long as I  don't recognize that something is somebody's property, I won't deny my right to use it)

If you can make me an argument that the public owns the air and exclude me, good for you. In contrast, I can show that the public, can and does and continues to intend to enforce driving privileges against those who disagree with them.

----------


## Danke

> I have no right to use anything that's owned by somebody else. (Trick : as long as I  don't recognize that something is somebody's property, I won't deny my right to use it)
> 
> If you can make me an argument that the public owns the air and exclude me, good for you. In contrast, I can show that the public, can and does and continues to intend to enforce driving privileges against those who disagree with them.


So can the public force you to stay home?  And not use any public property?

----------


## WaltM

> More like endangering the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of those who will now fall prey to the countless people whose licenses were taken away for that very thing?* Believe it or not, fines, license revocation, and breathe analyzers in cars really do keep people off of the road contrary to the weak counter argument of "they'll do it anyway."*


I believe it, living in a city that greatly benefits from it.

Yes, a lot of people have been inconvenienced by their "right" to drive being revoked, but the city is safer without them driving (and it's worth it). 

Yes, many will "do it anyway" at the risk of being caught and punished again. Ask anybody who's been caught DUI whether they'd want to do it again (not if they will, would they want to).

----------


## WaltM

> So can the public force you to stay home?  And not use any public property?


ever heard of house arrest? curfew? imprisonment?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> exactly.
> 
> more specifically, driving on public roads is a government privilege. 
> 
> I can't imagine the government saying you can't drive your own car on your own land, unless there's a safety and environmental concern.


Well you still aren't responding to my post, but driving on State roads, is most assuredly not a privilege. You pay for them, you use them. Its ridiculous to take a position where you pay into it and yet aren't allowed to use said resource. You might have an argument if the only thing funding the roads were license fees, ticket violations, and other charges that were solely based on said usage. Gasoline in no way implies sole usage of the public roadways. As soon as you buy gas (unless of course they repel all gasoline taxes) you have the right to use said road (Perhaps not legally, but that is entirely another issue). 

Secondly, your other post about the public can disbar usage of resources even though you pay, is fundamentally absurd. Are you not part of the public? Am I not? Everyone is. This we call Tragedy of the Commons. No one owns the roads. The State is not a person. Its just ridiculous all the way around. Privatize it all now.

Besides we all know that gasoline taxes, license fees, etc. don't pay for the roads. Why do you think there is a great call to public infrastructure building and renovation all the time? Where do they get that money from? Sorry, but everyone has the right to use GOVERNMENT property. This is why I hate the State so much. It is inherently a divisive institution. Breeding conflict.

You aren't a food socialist, or an energy socialist, or a housing socialist, or any of those. Why are you a road socialist? Do you think someone who has been convicted of a felony should be disbarred forever for owning a firearm?

----------


## Danke

> ever heard of house arrest? curfew? imprisonment?


All but curfew are separate issues.

Usually curfews are temporary measures anyway.  Do you agree with curfews?

----------


## CCTelander

> if it's a strawman, correct me.
> 
> how is it not true?
> 
> travel is not a right, just like trespassing is not a right.



You are in error. The right to freely travel is indeed a fundamental right, just as sacred as any other.





> you have no right to travel on other people's property, so the public has every right to say you can't travel, or must travel by certain means they allow.



"The public" have no rights. Only individuals have rights. "The public" is a mere abstract, used for convenience when refering to certain groups of individuals. The moment "the public" can appear, personally, and enforce these supposed rights you'd grant them, I'll reconize them. Not before.

----------


## WaltM

> Well you still aren't responding to my post, but driving on State roads, is most assuredly not a privilege.


Yes it is. At least it's de facto. 

Only licensed drivers are privileged to drive licensed vehicles.




> You pay for them, you use them.


So exclude non-State residents and unlicensed people.




> Its ridiculous to take a position where you pay into it and yet aren't allowed to use said resource.


no it's not, not all shareholders have equal say. No State promises that a tax payer automatically is allowed to drive a vehicle on their roads.




> You might have an argument if the only thing funding the roads were license fees, ticket violations, and other charges that were solely based on said usage.


Actually it's quite irrelevant. No law promises a resident he's entitled to drive on the road, thus who funds it is not the primary reason to grant a person's privilege to drive on the road.




> Gasoline in no way implies sole usage of the public roadways. As soon as you buy gas (unless of course they repel all gasoline taxes) you have the right to use said road (Perhaps not legally, but that is entirely another issue).


No, as soon as you buy gas legally, you are allowed to use the gas in a safe and legal way. 






> Secondly, your other post about the public can disbar usage of resources even though you pay, is fundamentally absurd. Are you not part of the public? Am I not? Everyone is. This we call Tragedy of the Commons. No one owns the roads. The State is not a person. Its just ridiculous all the way around. Privatize it all now.


How would privatizing roads solve the "they are not a person" problem?
How would privatizing it solve the "they can't exclude me" problem?
Some people seem to have a block in their head that prevents them from seeing public, government, private, corporations all as PEOPLE WHO ACT AS PEOPLE.

----------


## phill4paul

> Much like respecting the fundamental right to own and carry firearms for self-defense is a good way to attract robbers, murderers, and irresponsible gun owners?
> 
> Freedom entails certain risks.


 Yep and yep. CCT way to take it down to another freedom infringed! 

 I've gone the rounds on these boards regarding warrantless searches and will not do it again. 

  Yep yep. Many on this board are for freedom until some dumbass infringes on theirs or those they are close to and therefore the freedoms of everyone else needs to be infringed in the name of the greater good. Meaning their interpretation.

 You either have freedom. The responsibility and the penalties for such freedom. Or you have the opposite.

----------


## WaltM

> You are in error. The right to freely travel is indeed a fundamental right, just as sacred as any other.


Say that to a policeman. 

Tell him he's got no authority over you.

Did you know they're scared as hell of the word SACRED coming out of a free thinking citizen's mouth? (Answer : No they're not, naive people who think they have rights and can semantically outsmart the law, end up like the recent case of Bruno Bruhwiler, google him and see what being a smartass gets you into)





> "The public" have no rights. Only individuals have rights.


What is the public composed of? Who counts as an individual?




> "The public" is a mere abstract, used for convenience when refering to certain groups of individuals. The moment "the public" can appear, personally, and enforce these supposed rights you'd grant them, I'll reconize them. Not before.


The public is represented by people who support, protect and speak for them.

----------


## WaltM

> All but curfew are separate issues.
> 
> Usually curfews are temporary measures anyway.  Do you agree with curfews?


I don't mind curfews as long as my house and yard is big enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv

----------


## CCTelander

> Yep and yep. CCT way to take it down to another freedom infringed! 
> 
>  I've gone the rounds on these boards regarding warrantless searches and will not do it again. 
> 
>   Yep yep. Many on this board are for freedom until some dumbass infringes on theirs or those they are close to and therefore the freedoms of everyone else needs to be infringed in the name of the greater good. Meaning their interpretation.
> 
>  You either have freedom. The responsibility and the penalties for such freedom. Or you have the opposite.



It's like trying to have a discussion with a brick, sometimes. Some people seem to have a great deal of difficulty with the whole concept of liberty.

----------


## WaltM

> You aren't a food socialist, or an energy socialist, or a housing socialist, or any of those. Why are you a road socialist? Do you think someone who has been convicted of a felony should be disbarred forever for owning a firearm?


actually, I am an energy socialist, education socialist to a degree, firefighter socialist and police socialist. So I don't think being a road socialist is that much worse. 

No, I don't quite believe felony is a good criteria of gun ownership per se.

----------


## Danke

> Actually it's quite irrelevant. No law promises a resident he's entitled to _drive_ on the road, thus who funds it is not the primary reason to grant a person's privilege to drive on the road.


_Drive_ being one of the operative words.

But travel is a right, as affirmed many times in our history and by the Supreme Court.

----------


## WaltM

> _Drive_ being one of the operative words.
> 
> But travel is a right, as affirmed many times in our history and by the Supreme Court.


what does travel entail?

does a handicapped person have a right to be where he wants at the expense of others? Or does he just have the right to do what he can with his hands? does a child have the right to walk with a stranger? does a child have the right to walk away from his parents?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Yes it is. At least it's de facto. 
> 
> Only licensed drivers are privileged to drive licensed vehicles.
> 
> 
> 
> So exclude non-State residents and unlicensed people.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about the law. The law is irrelevant. The law is there for legal plunder.

I'm talking about the fundamental issue at hand. If a person pays into a State resource, and is disbarred from using that resource, you are fine with that? You believe that is morally ok? That someone should be forced to subsidize your use? That is the very definition of (do not mix chattel slavery, with partial slavery) slavery. (And yes, roads are funded quite a bit through sales & income taxes & property taxes) 

Besides the license process is a complete joke. You drive around a few cones, parallel park, etc. That in no way assessess a persons capability of driving. If your argument boils down to we need to restrict the taxpayers right of use of State resources because they may damage it, or, that said activity was dangerous, then you need to be for boat licenses, bicycle licenses, license to use state walkways, etc. 

Non-State residents & unlicensed persons PAY FOR YOU TO USE the roads. You have no $#@!ing right to steal from me so I can pay for your use of the roads. 




> no it's not, not all shareholders have equal say. No State promises that a tax payer automatically is allowed to drive a vehicle on their roads.


You missed the complete notion. Why are you being obtuse? Of course the joe shmoe with a golf club membership doesn't have the same say as the VP, but he has the right to use their property. Now imagine that scenario, but he is forced to pay for membership, and is also disbarred. That is the scenario we are in now. After all, the VP has determined that golf carts are dangerous, and no one is allowed to use their facilities without said license, and they can restrict that license to whoever they please for whatever arbitrary whims (laws), they deem. That is what is going on now. 

You are asking how privatization solves the Tragedy of the Commons? I would have hoped someone on this site would have known that answer, but I guess not. 

http://mises.org/daily/1373

Thats a good read (Though it is about banking, but alas...). 

By privatizing the roads, you would have no taxation for the roads. (Well, ideally...) That means abolishing all taxation that went towards that. So now, if you choose not to pay for that service you are neither stolen from to fund someone elses use, and you neither get the right to use that service. Thats a fundamental concept, and it is disconcerting for me to have to say that on this forum.

PS: Legal entities (State, Corporation, Unions, etc.) are not people. Only individuals act. Hence, you know -- _HUMAN ACTION_ by freaking Ludwig von Mises!

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> actually, I am an energy socialist, education socialist to a degree, firefighter socialist and police socialist. So I don't think being a road socialist is that much worse. 
> 
> No, I don't quite believe felony is a good criteria of gun ownership per se.


So how are those 40,000 deaths a year? Enjoying that? Lovely road services you argue for. Why would you not disbar a felon of arming a firearm, but yet would disbar a drunk driver from driving? I have no idea where you will stand on any issue. I don't even know the criteria you use to judge. Seems like whim. May I recommend _The Law_ by Frederic Bastiat.

----------


## WaltM

> I'm not talking about the law. The law is irrelevant. The law is there for legal plunder.


WHy should I bother reading on??





> I'm talking about the fundamental issue at hand. If a person pays into a State resource, and is disbarred from using that resource, you are fine with that?


You have to first show me a person was paying for something.




> You believe that is morally ok? That someone should be forced to subsidize your use? That is the very definition of (do not mix chattel slavery, with partial slavery) slavery. (And yes, roads are funded quite a bit through sales & income taxes & property taxes)


how would you like it if I said morality is irrelevant?





> Besides the license process is a complete joke. You drive around a few cones, parallel park, etc. That in no way assessess a persons capability of driving.


so drunks, children, handicapped, retards are equally capable of driving?





> If your argument boils down to we need to restrict the taxpayers right of use of State resources because they may damage it, or, that said activity was dangerous, then you need to be for boat licenses, bicycle licenses, license to use state walkways, etc.


No, my argument is the public, or a group of people, have the right to protect themselves. 

You seem to sound like just because you paid for your gun you should be allowed to use it any way you like. 




> Non-State residents & unlicensed persons PAY FOR YOU TO USE the roads. You have no $#@!ing right to steal from me so I can pay for your use of the roads.


You don't call it a right, I don't call it stealing. 




> You missed the complete notion. Why are you being obtuse? Of course the joe shmoe with a golf club membership doesn't have the same say as the VP, but he has the right to use their property.


The same right? Equal access at all times?




> Now imagine that scenario, but he is forced to pay for membership, and is also disbarred.


does the membership list of rights guarantee his usage?




> That is the scenario we are in now. After all, the VP has determined that golf carts are dangerous, and no one is allowed to use their facilities without said license, and they can restrict that license to whoever they please for whatever arbitrary whims (laws), they deem. That is what is going on now.


Just like how we currently have laws that deem certain usages of guns dangerous and punish people who use it illegally. Oh wait, you don't want to talk about laws.





> You are asking how privatization solves the Tragedy of the Commons? I would have hoped someone on this site would have known that answer, but I guess not. 
> 
> http://mises.org/daily/1373
> 
> Thats a good read (Though it is about banking, but alas...). 
> 
> By privatizing the roads, you would have no taxation for the roads. (Well, ideally...)


*YEAH, IDEALLY*

Good luck preventing the corporation who owns private roads from seeking bailouts and freebies.




> That means abolishing all taxation that went towards that. So now, if you choose not to pay for that service you are neither stolen from to fund someone elses use, and you neither get the right to use that service. Thats a fundamental concept, and it is disconcerting for me to have to say that on this forum.
> 
> PS: Entities are not people. Only people act. Hence, you know -- _HUMAN ACTION_ by freaking Ludwig von Mises!


Entities are owned and controlled by people, just like cars are driven by people. A car has no rights, but destroying a car violate's the owner's rights. Restricting where a car can be parked and what a car can hit is done with respect to the OWNER AND OPERATOR.

Do you believe remote control cars shouldn't be allowed on the road because it's not a person excercising his right to travel?

If taxes specifically stated that you're not paying for roads, would your argument be dead? (and instead, roads are funded by an altruist donor who wishes to give it away for free, under the control of the public, with safety considerations regardless of how much taxes one pays)

----------


## WaltM

> So how are those 40,000 deaths a year? Enjoying that?


Yes, I am enjoying that.

You live in a fantasy land where it's better?




> Lovely road services you argue for. Why would you not disbar a felon of arming a firearm, but yet would disbar a drunk driver from driving?


Ha, nice generalization. I didn't say felons are to be NEVER barred, nor did I say drunks are to be automatically barred. 




> I have no idea where you will stand on any issue. I don't even know the criteria you use to judge. Seems like whim. May I recommend _The Law_ by Frederic Bastiat.


The Law is a big joke of wishful thinking. Starts off with assertive arrogance that it's BECAUSE people have rights, that ...... (but never explain why, how people have rights).

----------


## eOs

WaltM, I don't know how you have patience for a group of people who's ideology is based on a concept of absolutes that bears no resemblance on reality, nor has it ever succeeded in this world or the next. Yea, *ideally* it would be great to have absolute freedom, but they just don't understand the consequences of such a world, or they do, and they wholly embrace living in the new-age dark ages where JosephTheLibertarian is allowed all the hand grenades and nuclear weapons he wants. It's a joke really.

----------


## WaltM

> WaltM, I don't know how you have patience for a group of people who's ideology is based on a concept of absolutes that bears no resemblance on reality, nor has it ever succeeded in this world or the next.


Only because catching them in contradiction or an absurd conclusion entertains me. 





> Yea, *ideally* it would be great to have absolute freedom, but they just don't understand the consequences of such a world, or they do, and they wholly embrace living in the new-age dark ages where JosephTheLibertarian is allowed all the hand grenades and nuclear weapons he wants. It's a joke really.


maybe it's not a joke to them, I'm open minded enough to hear them out, hoping I can learn something.

----------


## eOs

> Only because catching them in contradiction or an absurd conclusion entertains me. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe it's not a joke to them, I'm open minded enough to hear them out, hoping I can learn something.


No doubt, I'd love to be convinced otherwise which is why I am for them moving to the amazon and creating their society uninhibited by state or federal law. (epic 1000th post)

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You've got money for a plane ticket? I hear the amazon jungle is full of freedom, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and live out your dream of unimpeded recklessness and disregard for human safety there?


You would invade paradise to prevent a peak oxygen catastrophe.

That leaves one option.  Putting the statist religion back in the minority of force bottle and building a majority of force liberty philosophy consensus.  Does that work for you?

----------


## CCTelander

> You would invade paradise to prevent a peak oxygen catastrophe.
> 
> That leaves one option.  Putting the statist religion back in the minority of force bottle and building a majority of force liberty philosophy consensus.  Does that work for you?



Hey, why bother even trying to learn to cooperate and respect each other's rights when you can just stick a gun in other people's faces and get what you want?

And we voluntarists get the bad rap around here. Go figure.

----------


## jbuttell

> Yes, I am enjoying that.
> 
> You live in a fantasy land where it's better?
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, nice generalization. I didn't say felons are to be NEVER barred, nor did I say drunks are to be automatically barred. 
> 
> 
> ...


What you're saying puts you in the inconvenint position of having to defend society as it exists today. I'm not so quick to dismiss freedom for fear that death and destruction may follow.

----------


## WaltM

> Hey, why bother even trying to learn to cooperate and respect each other's rights when you can just stick a gun in other people's faces and get what you want?


Good question.




> And we voluntarists get the bad rap around here. Go figure.


yeah, you do. figured it?

----------


## eOs

> You would invade paradise to prevent a peak oxygen catastrophe.
> 
> That leaves one option.  Putting the statist religion back in the minority of force bottle and building a majority of force liberty philosophy consensus.  Does that work for you?


I'm here to restore a very limited, sensible government as intended by the founders and Ron Paul. we all share a common goal, and that is more freedom than we have. We can have our disagreements, but I still consider everyone here my ally.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

*A conservative on the Commerce Clause:*

IT'S AN OUTRAGE TO LIBERTY HOW PERVERTED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS BECOME COMPARED TO THE FIRST 150 YEARS OF THIS COUNTRY.  I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE HEAVY HAND OF GOVERNMENT IN MY ECONOMIC FREEDOM!!!

*A conservative on Travel:*

So what if it was universally held people had a right to travel the public right of way by whatever means of the day for the first one hundred and fifty years.  This is the 21st century and driving is now a privilege....  biyotchhh!!!

----------


## libertybrewcity

so if you didn't have a license, how would get on an airplane? would every georgian have to get a passport if they wanted to fly, or would you have the option of getting a license?

----------


## CCTelander

I love these kinds of threads. They help to clearly identify the thugs among us, so we can more easily avoid them.

----------


## WaltM

> so if you didn't have a license, how would get on an airplane?


You don't need a license to BOARD a plane, but let me know when you can OPERATE a plane big enough to hold 200 people without a license.




> would every georgian have to get a passport if they wanted to fly, or would you have the option of getting a license?


no, passports are for identification when you enter a foreign country. boarding passes and plane tickets are for the purposes of boarding the plane itself, I don't think there currently are any explicit laws for who can board an airplane, aside from the obvious ones, such as don't bring weapons and don't be a hijacker (and it's not at all because our country cares about commercial airlines who make millions, they care about planes being forced to land on unwelcome property, or planes hijacked by dangerous people). 

driver licenses are for OPERATION of a vehicle, not riding in one. Did you know that carpooling legally ONLY counts if your passenger is  LICENSED DRIVER (because if he wasn't, he'd not get anywhere without another driver, thus he's not saving a car from occupying the roads)

----------


## WaltM

> I'm here to restore a very limited, sensible government as intended by the founders and Ron Paul. we all share a common goal, and that is more freedom than we have. We can have our disagreements, but I still consider everyone here my ally.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Effective June 21, 2008, adult passengers (18 and over) are required to show a U.S. federal or state-issued photo ID that contains the following: name, date of birth, gender, expiration date and a tamper-resistant feature in order to be allowed to go through the checkpoint and onto their flight.

Passengers who do not or cannot present an acceptable ID will have to provide information to the Transportation Security Officer performing Travel Document Checking duties in order to verify their identity. Passengers who are cleared through this process may be subject to additional screening. Passengers whose identity cannot be verified by TSA may not be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint or onto an airplane.

Acceptable IDs include:

    * U.S. passport
    * U.S. passport card
    * DHS "Trusted Traveler" cards (NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
    * U.S. Military ID (active duty or retired military and their dependents, and DOD civilians)
    * Permanent Resident Card
    * Border Crossing Card
    * DHS-designated enhanced driver's license
    * Drivers Licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent) that meets REAL ID benchmarks (All states are currently in compliance)
    * A Native American Tribal Photo ID
    * An airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved security plan)
    * A foreign government-issued passport
    * Canadian provincial driver's license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) card
    * Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)

Non-US/Canadian citizens are not required to carry their passports if they have documents issued by the U.S. government such as Permanent Resident Cards. Those who do not should be carrying their passports while visiting the U.S.

This standardization of the list of accepted documents better aligns TSA with other DHS components, including Customs and Border Protection, and REAL ID benchmarks.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> You don't need a license to BOARD a plane, but let me know when you can OPERATE a plane big enough to hold 200 people without a license.
> 
> 
> 
> no, passports are for identification when you enter a foreign country. boarding passes and plane tickets are for the purposes of boarding the plane itself, I don't think there currently are any explicit laws for who can board an airplane, aside from the obvious ones, such as don't bring weapons and don't be a hijacker (and it's not at all because our country cares about commercial airlines who make millions, they care about planes being forced to land on unwelcome property, or planes hijacked by dangerous people). 
> 
> driver licenses are for OPERATION of a vehicle, not riding in one. Did you know that carpooling legally ONLY counts if your passenger is  LICENSED DRIVER (because if he wasn't, he'd not get anywhere without another driver, thus he's not saving a car from occupying the roads)


have you ever taken a commercial flight? you definitely need to show ID right before you go through security. They ask for your ticket and identification. If you don't have a drivers license or your license is expired, you show a passport.


also, wouldn't georgia become become the biggest attraction for illegal immigrants? if you don't need an id, why not head over to georgia and get a job? you could give a fake name, fake everything and still be "legal"

http://www.infowars.com/welcome-to-maywood-mexico/

----------


## WaltM

> have you ever taken a commercial flight? you definitely need to show ID right before you go through security. They ask for your ticket and identification. If you don't have a drivers license or your license is expired, you show a passport.


What if you're underage?

It's an identification, not a license to board a vehicle. 





> also, wouldn't georgia become become the biggest attraction for illegal immigrants? if you don't need an id, why not head over to georgia and get a job? you could give a fake name, fake everything and still be "legal"
> 
> http://www.infowars.com/welcome-to-maywood-mexico/


i lived in georgia before, it's got its ups and downs, but it's not known to be a place for commerce or jobs.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> What if you're underage?
> 
> It's an identification, not a license to board a vehicle. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i lived in georgia before, it's got its ups and downs, but it's not known to be a place for commerce or jobs.


if you're underage you would likely have to be accompanied by an adult with an ID through to the gate.

california is not known for its jobs, but illegal immigrants are not always looking for jobs, they are looking for a place to live without the feds up their backs, like in that town in california. 

also, the law would just get rid of drivers licenses? you would still need to get an identification?

----------


## WaltM

> if you're underage you would likely have to be accompanied by an adult with an ID through to the gate.


is that effectively saying an underage doesn't have the right to travel or that they have the privilege to travel without identification?





> california is not known for its jobs, but illegal immigrants are not always looking for jobs, they are looking for a place to live without the feds up their backs, like in that town in california.


Yes, California IS known for its jobs. 
(you've heard that old saying, if CA was an independent nation it'd be the 8th largest economy in the world, right?)
Entertainment, technology, tourism, media. But it's also falling at the fastest rate. 
(the state has 1/8 of the US population, probably even higher after illegals are counted)

If illegals want a place to live free from harassment, rather than jobs, there's  PERFECT place for them to live : Mexico.




> also, the law would just get rid of drivers licenses? you would still need to get an identification?


for the purposes of boarding a plane? I believe so, as state & local laws can't supercede either federal transportation laws, or private property (which airlines can request identification on their own)

----------


## libertybrewcity

> If illegals want a place to live free from harassment, rather than jobs, there's  PERFECT place for them to live : Mexico.


unfortunately, that is not what is happening. US policies like NAFTA have made parts of Mexico almost uninhabitable, which is why thousands flee across the border everyday. They will go anywhere where they do not risk deportation.


Also, reading the bill more closely, it doesn't even repeal drivers license laws. It merely reinforces everyones right to travel and says it repeals all laws that conflict with this.

----------


## loriduan

> I have no right to use anything that's owned by somebody else. (Trick : as long as I  don't recognize that something is somebody's property, I won't deny my right to use it)
> 
> If you can make me an argument that the public owns the air and exclude me, good for you. In contrast, I can show that the public, can and does and continues to intend to enforce driving privileges against those who disagree with them.


I would challenge you to support your delusional claim.  In fact, here is a Memorandum which proves that since this country has existed the people have in fact had the right to use public roads.  It is only those uneducated who think it is otherwise.  

www.lojack12.com/Constitution/Drivers.doc

A person who proclaims to be logical would likely not claim that it requires the public a "permit" to use public property.  But then I suppose you also think that paying a usage fee ( property tax)  on your "private property"  is logical as well. 

I bet you even think you live in the United States as typically used in law.

Here is a little primer on "Law"  for you.

www.lojack12.com/Constitution/Reality.doc 

When you get done reading, get back to us and explain to everyone why IF  the government has the authority to do what they do WHY  they have to lie to you in order to get you to comply. 

I encourage everyone to read this. I wrote it up after I realized that most people do not know what I assumed they still taught in school. Imagine my surprise.

----------


## loriduan

> Just like how we currently have laws that deem certain usages of guns dangerous and punish people who use it illegally. Oh wait, you don't want to talk about laws.


Actually what you falsely believe is "LAW" is in fact,  corporate Rules and Regulation imposed under "color of law"  on your since you claim to be a member of the Corporation you call the "United States" each time you claim to be a "US citizen"  instead of the true nature of a human being born in one of these united States of America, that being an American Citizen, an American National. 

 (see specifically Title 28, Chapter 176, section 3002, definitions, "United States") 

I suggest you Google "Color of law".

After you learn the difference between "Law" and "color of law" 

I then suggest you Google  Title 42  section 14141. 

Your attempts to use your erroneous personal opinion as proof what you say is fact is found to be rather lacking.  

If you want to argue the "law"  perhaps you should provide some?  I will be more than happy to correct each of your patently absurd claims.  
I am quite versed in the "law".  

Good luck.

----------


## loriduan

> also, the law would just get rid of drivers licenses? you would still need to get an identification?


Actually in the  Constitution for United States (notice it is FOR the United States, a foreign country to America), the commerce clause does allow for the imposition of a commercial drivers license.

I have covered that in the Drivers.doc  memorandum linked above. 

However the average Citizen ( as opposed to the second class "citizen of the United States" who have no rights)  can not be required to have a license for ANY unalienable Right.

Unalienable Rights are not granted by the Constitution to begin with.  A few of them are enumerated in it as guaranteed, which the founding fathers felt to be most important.

The Constitution is not a document FOR the People, but rather a document BY the People to control the governments who exist by virtue of the little  sovereignty the People grant them to operate.  The fact that so many are ignorant of this fact is why we are where we are today.

----------


## WaltM

> unfortunately, that is not what is happening. US policies like NAFTA have made parts of Mexico almost uninhabitable, which is why thousands flee across the border everyday. They will go anywhere where they do not risk deportation.


How is that not job related? Are US federal immigration agents harassing Mexicans in their own country?





> Also, reading the bill more closely, it doesn't even repeal drivers license laws. It merely reinforces everyones right to travel and says it repeals all laws that conflict with this.


what's a law that conflicts with this, and if it doesn't stop the requirement of having driver licenses as a basis for privilege to drive, what DOES it do (as far as reinforcing a right that is supposedly suppressed)?

----------


## WaltM

> Actually in the  Constitution for United States (notice it is FOR the United States, a foreign country to America), the commerce clause does allow for the imposition of a commercial drivers license.


What's America? A country?

Who ever said United States is "a" country?





> I have covered that in the Drivers.doc  memorandum linked above. 
> 
> However the average Citizen ( as opposed to the second class "citizen of the United States" who have no rights)


Who ever said average citizens have rights? Where do you get that and how do you excercise it, enforce it?




> can not be required to have a license for ANY unalienable Right.


So a person being robbed cannot be required to give what he's asked at gun point just because he believes he has an unalienable right to his property and life?




> Unalienable Rights are not granted by the Constitution to begin with.


What are unalienable rights? Can you list them all, and why they're unalienable, as opposed to alienable?

If a right can be taken away, and violated, it's alienable and granted.




> A few of them are enumerated in it as guaranteed, which the founding fathers felt to be most important.
> 
> The Constitution is not a document FOR the People, but rather a document BY the People to control the governments who exist by virtue of the little  sovereignty the People grant them to operate.  The fact that so many are ignorant of this fact is why we are where we are today.


The fact you claim to be knowledgeable about your rights and semantics doesn't help anybody. You believe that a piece of paper can stop tyranny? You think the government recognizes they're 'GRANTED' their rights to operate?

----------


## WaltM

> Actually what you falsely believe is "LAW" is in fact,  corporate Rules and Regulation imposed under "color of law"  on your since you claim to be a member of the Corporation you call the "United States" each time you claim to be a "US citizen"  instead of the true nature of a human being born in one of these united States of America, that being an American Citizen, an American National. 
> 
>  (see specifically Title 28, Chapter 176, section 3002, definitions, "United States") 
> 
> I suggest you Google "Color of law".
> 
> After you learn the difference between "Law" and "color of law" 
> 
> I then suggest you Google  Title 42  section 14141. 
> ...


actually what you falsely believe are your "rights" are just absence of force where benevolent dictators choose to grant some freedom. You have none, Google all you want and remember to tell whoever robs you, rapes your female family members and raids your house that you know your rights, I'm confident they're interested in your knowledge about "law" vs "color of law". Have you ever used these commerce, gold fringe arguments in a court setting? Did you hear one of "your people" has just been arrested and pending trial for this BS? (His name is Bruno Bruhwiler, I dont recommend you Google him, it'll spoil your fantasies)

----------


## WaltM

> I would challenge you to support your delusional claim.  In fact, here is a Memorandum which proves that since this country has existed the people have in fact had the right to use public roads.  It is only those uneducated who think it is otherwise.  
> 
> www.lojack12.com/Constitution/Drivers.doc


*
Automobile and Motor Vehicle
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
*


Cute!




> A person who proclaims to be logical would likely not claim that it requires the public a "permit" to use public property.  But then I suppose you also think that paying a usage fee ( property tax)  on your "private property"  is logical as well.


It's perfectly logical, not preferable and acceptable to me though. 





> I bet you even think you live in the United States as typically used in law.


Yeah, I don't live in gold fringe freeman land like you. 




> Here is a little primer on "Law"  for you.
> 
> www.lojack12.com/Constitution/Reality.doc 
> 
> When you get done reading, get back to us and explain to everyone why IF  the government has the authority to do what they do WHY  they have to lie to you in order to get you to comply.


They have authority because they have guns, they don't need to lie about anything, although they'd prefer to have peaceful compliance over violent confrontation if possible. I don't consider the government bad per se, nor do I waste time with semantics, I understand that what's on paper is useless when another person has guns pointing at you.

I don't argue with the government about laws (at most I can say I prefer not to have them or I wish they didn't exist, I don't act like i know it more than them), just like I don't reason with criminals about how they're violating me. 




> I encourage everyone to read this. I wrote it up after I realized that most people do not know what I assumed they still taught in school. Imagine my surprise.


You think a pen is mightier than a sword.

----------


## loriduan

> as state & local laws can't supercede either federal transportation laws, or private property (which airlines can request identification on their own)


Actually Federal "transportation laws" directly refute your claims. 

Take notice of how they specifically say "used for commercial purpose"? 

Just because you "assume" your private automobile is a "motor vehicle" is not anyone faults but your own. 

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 2 > § 31
§ 31. Definitions

(6)  Motor vehicle. The term motor vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

----------


## WaltM

> Actually Federal "transportation laws" directly refute your claims. 
> 
> Take notice of how they specifically say "used for commercial purpose"? 
> 
> Just because you "assume" your private automobile is a "motor vehicle" is not anyone faults but your own. 
> 
> TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 2 > § 31
> § 31. Definitions
> 
> (6)  Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.


So you recognize federal laws?

*Wait, even so, planes are commercial in this context, FAIL.*

Let me get this straight, you're saying that a child, drunk, handicap, and mentally challenged person are all legally allowed to operate a private automobile on public roads?

But hey, if you wanna keep playing word games, I got one for you. Who says traveling isn't engaging in commerce?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You think a pen is mightier than a sword.


Unfortunately it is a widely held belief a pen is mightier than a sword.  I wish some of the people who believe it could explain how the education genie works and formulate it into a plan of individual action.

----------


## loriduan

> What's America? A country?
> 
> Who ever said United States is "a" country?
> 
> *Everyone on my planet called Earth?* 
> 
> Who ever said average citizens have rights?
> 
> *GOD? The Magna Carta chapter 62-63? The Preamble? The Constitution?  How many examples do you want?* 
> ...


No I think that all "persons" ( which does not include People) like you should be scared and cry and argue about things you know nothing about.
Based on your irrational logic and baseless arguments, can we safely assume you are a government stooge trying to convince the People they are slaves and have no choice? 

Your pointless banter about "law" is humorous at least, since  you make no effort to refute the facts of "law" I have provided you with.  It is duly noted.  There is a great many of us in America that do daily exercise our rights  and do not cower in the corner as you imply you do.

----------


## WaltM

> Based on your irrational logic and baseless arguments, can we safely assume you are a government stooge trying to convince the People they are slaves and have no choice?



I'm certainly not a provocateur or anarchist who wants people to get locked up over bad legal advice. *Looks like you can defend Bruno Bruhwiler, he should've consulted with you before he gave up entirely on his commerce arguments, and hired a lawyer.* 





> Your pointless banter about "law" is humorous at least, since  you make no effort to refute the facts of "law" I have provided you with.


Your opinion and cherry picking of laws to mean what you want it to mean, being a person (I'm betting) who has no legal training, are not "facts". Even if they were, I'll believe you when you defend people in court and get people free from prosecution with your arguments. 

I can live with being wrong, illogical, stupid, or a slave (as you'd like to call it), I can't live as happily being locked up for listening to an anonymous poster for legal advice. 




> It is duly noted.  There is a great many of us in America that do daily exercise our rights  and do not cower in the corner as you imply you do.


what did you do today that I didn't do? Wanna brag about it? Got it on tape?

----------


## WaltM

> Everyone on my planet called Earth?


No, you live in fantasy land. 




> GOD? The Magna Carta chapter 62-63? The Preamble? The Constitution? How many examples do you want?


I want one with superior firepower, looks like you got none. 

*Oh, and which one of these argues about law vs color of law, people vs persons, citizen vs human being?*
(not that I care if they don't have firepower to back it up, but it's fun to ask)




> By being born? By demanding them like the court tells you but you apparently are to afraid to do?


What kind of communist believes that just by being born you have rights?
By demanding them? Or by being born? Can't be both!




> *
> 
> Practice obfuscation much? If you exercised your Right to carry a weapon he likely would not be trying to rob you. But being a passive resistant as indicated above you get robbed.*


So if you happen to not have your weapon on you?

----------


## loriduan

> remember to tell whoever robs you, rapes your female family members and raids your house that you know your rights, 
> 
> *They would not fare well.  I defend myself. I am not a passive, afraid to defend myself.  Are you?* 
> 
> 
> I'm confident they're interested in your knowledge about "law" vs "color of law". Have you ever used these commerce, gold fringe arguments in a court setting?
> 
> *Often.  Do you think the memorandums were written for something to do?* 
> 
> ...


Notice you say "pending trial".  Now all they have to do is prove with overwhelming witness testimony refuting them.   LOL  Keep trying.  It is your prerogative to be scared of everything and unwilling to defend yourself.  Do not expect others to share your fear.

----------


## WaltM

> Notice you say "pending trial".  Now all they have to do is prove with overwhelming witness testimony refuting them.   LOL  Keep trying.  It is your prerogative to be scared of everything and unwilling to defend yourself.  Do not expect others to share your fear.


do you defend yourself with force or words?

I don't fear, I avoid violence when unnecessary.

*Pending trial was my way to brushing it over, I don't know the details, but last time we've heard, he's HIRED A LAWYER, meaning he's unable to defend himself with gold fringe arguments.*

----------


## loriduan

> You think a pen is mightier than a sword.


It is a source of knowledge. Are you ignorant or just pretending to be so?  Does knowledge frighten  you? 
 Is that why you make patently false claims about law then pretend the citations don't mean anything?  If the arguments are worthless, why exactly do the court opinions shows them to be valid and uphold them?   

You are displaying Obama logic here.  "immigration law will make ILLEGALS  afraid to report crimes".  LOL  Isn't illegally entering the country a crime?  Perhaps he is right then and it does make them afraid to report themselves for being illegal.

----------


## loriduan

> But hey, if you wanna keep playing word games, I got one for you. Who says traveling isn't engaging in commerce?


Um the courts?  I take it you are not capable of reading the provided documents I linked for you?   But don't let the Supreme courts opinions and the law get in the way of your ignorance.  Surely you are correct and the Courts are wrong.  When are you going to tell them about it? 

_ Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of
the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may
absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business
for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the
Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or
a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is
an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the
latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a
common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of
privilege. Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516_

----------


## WaltM

> It is a source of knowledge. Are you ignorant or just pretending to be so?  Does knowledge frighten  you?


Knowledge doesn't threaten me, ignorance and stupidity annoys me though.





> Is that why you make patently false claims about law then pretend the citations don't mean anything?


No, it's because you're not a legally trained profession to give legal advice. 




> If the arguments are worthless, why exactly do the court opinions shows them to be valid and uphold them?


Maybe because they're anecdotal, or at a different place and time. 




> You are displaying Obama logic here.  "immigration law will make ILLEGALS  afraid to report crimes"


You're saying it won't? 
If it doesn't, wouldn't it show how apathetic law enforcement is on immigrants?




> .  LOL  Isn't illegally entering the country a crime?


By statute and definition, if there's any way at all to illegally do something, it's a crime. 




> Perhaps he is right then and it does make them afraid to report themselves for being illegal.


varies by person.

----------


## WaltM

> Um the courts?  I take it you are not capable of reading the provided documents I linked for you?   But don't let the Supreme courts opinions and the law get in the way of your ignorance.  Surely you are correct and the Courts are wrong.  When are you going to tell them about it? 
> 
> _“… Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of
> the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may
> absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business
> for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the
> Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or
> a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is
> an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the
> ...


ok, so what's to stop them from re-interpreting it later?

How are they prevented from saying "private gain" is not always monetary?

why do you cite court cases and laws when you outright deny their authority over you?

----------


## loriduan

> Your opinion and cherry picking of laws to mean what you want it to mean, being a person (I'm betting) who has no legal training, are not "facts". Even if they were, I'll believe you when you defend people in court and get people free from prosecution with your arguments.


I see.  You make claims about "federal law"  and when I provide the very "federal law" you failed to present in your erroneous claim, it is now "cherrypicking"  because you lack the ability to refute what is provided.  

Does being a lawyer require "training"?  Is there a "license"  or something required? 

I can quote you the statute and regulation off the top of my head.   It is THEIR sources not mine.  

You use the typical ploy of attacking the messenger for lack of ability to refute the facts. 

Is the basis of your argument, that because I am not a "lawyer"  the facts presented from the government sites are incorrect.  If so by all means show us your evidence that the law as promulgated in the USC and CFR are incorrect.  

If my sources (USC,CFR and Courts) are cherry picking, what sources do "lawyers" use to defend "clients", defined  in Bouviers as " the mentally infirm lacking the ability to make decisions for themselves"?  

To coin a phrase of yours,  your argument is a "FAIL".  LOL 

Your position is patently untenable, obviously.

----------


## WaltM

> I see.  You make claims about "federal law"  and when I provide the very "federal law" you failed to present in your erroneous claim, it is now "cherrypicking"  because you lack the ability to refute what is provided.


I definitely lack the cherrypicking talent you have. I'm not a legal professional.





> Does being a lawyer require "training"?  Is there a "license"  or something required?


I could say yes, then you'll ask me where is that requirement, and what gives that authority. 

So I'm better off saying I just trust lawyers over you because I feel like it. 

I guess I never understood what gives God, Magna carta, and Constitution any validity outside of people using superior firepower to force people to accept it. 




> I can quote you the statute and regulation off the top of my head.   It is THEIR sources not mine.  
> 
> You use the typical ploy of attacking the messenger for lack of ability to refute the facts.


I'm attacking the messenger, no doubt. I have no interest in refuting an untrained, unprofessional legal advisor.





> Is the basis of your argument, that because I am not a "lawyer"  the facts presented from the government sites are incorrect.


No, just that I don't trust entirely your interpretation of it.




> If so by all means show us your evidence that the law as promulgated in the USC and CFR are incorrect.  
> 
> If my sources (USC,CFR and Courts) are cherry picking, what sources do "lawyers" use to defend "clients", defined  in Bouviers as " the mentally infirm lacking the ability to make decisions for themselves"?


they use the same sources, they cherrypick better than you, that's just my opinion.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> no, it's because you're not a legally trained profession to give legal advice.


Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

I declare deem the Constitution null and void because the people who drafted it did not have law licenses and were legally incompetent to bind subsequent generations to any matter of law they were unlicensed to practice.

----------


## WaltM

> Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
> 
> I hereby declare the Constitution null and void because the people who drafted it did not have law licenses and were legally incompetent to bind subsequent generations to any matter of law they were unlicensed to practice.


you are absolutely correct, who gave our founding fathers the legal right to violently oppose the British and establish a government here against the will of the Indian savages? (Answer : they had firepower, they didn't care what other people said)

You're well aware they lived before automobiles and airplanes were invented, right?
 Do you know of them speaking of how negroes and women have the right to own guns?

----------


## mrsat_98

> So you recognize federal laws?
> 
> 
> But hey, if you wanna keep playing word games, I got one for you. Who says traveling isn't engaging in commerce?


Traveling is a federally protected activity. See 18 USc 245

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245
Federally Protected Activities 


2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:


e) a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or 

3)  Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include  kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or  may be sentenced to death.

----------


## WaltM

> Traveling is a federally protected activity. See 18 USc 245


I thought we already established that traveling does not equate to operating a vehicle (which distinguishes a minor's right to walk, with a trained driver's privilege to drive)

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I thought we already established that traveling does not equate to operating a vehicle (which distinguishes a minor's right to walk, with a trained driver's privilege to drive)


It's a replay...




> *A conservative on the Commerce Clause:*
> 
> IT'S AN OUTRAGE TO LIBERTY HOW PERVERTED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS BECOME COMPARED TO THE FIRST 150 YEARS OF THIS COUNTRY.  I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE HEAVY HAND OF GOVERNMENT IN MY ECONOMIC FREEDOM!!!
> 
> *A conservative on Travel:*
> 
> So what if it was universally held people had a right to travel the public right of way by whatever means of the day for the first one hundred and fifty years.  This is the 21st century and driving is now a privilege....  biyotchhh!!!

----------


## WaltM

> It's a replay...


let's try to think in context of time.

if the right to travel meant adapting the right to any person, any age, any mental state, to operate any vehicle.

why isn't it logical to say a person's right to life means, that any person, any age, any health state, is entitled to free health care? free security?

speaking of that, is imprisoning a person violation of his sacred right to travel? Is there any guarantee that restricting his right to travel makes us safer? Why should he lose his right to travel just because he killed somebody, robbed somebody, raped somebody? None of his crimes violated a person's right to travel, or destruction of public property, so why should he not be trusted to continue to travel after he's convicted of murder, robbery, rape?

----------


## constituent

> actually what you falsely believe are your "rights" are just absence of force where benevolent dictators choose to grant some freedom. You have none, Google all you want and remember to tell whoever robs you, rapes your female family members and raids your house that you know your rights, I'm confident they're interested in your knowledge about "law" vs "color of law".


look out, it's JoshLA...

----------


## Arion45

> Guess we'll have to just agree to disagree then. I'd suggest taking an online course on how to live with others though. Your philosophy truly does contain flaws in reality.


Your philosophy is evil. Shame..

----------


## teacherone

> look out, it's JoshLA...


agreed and bumped... the enormous post count gives it away...

----------


## loriduan

> I thought we already established that traveling does not equate to operating a vehicle (which distinguishes a minor's right to walk, with a trained driver's privilege to drive)


No  you established that you think that.  What you fail to grasp being a poorly armed troll is that the Supreme court disagrees with you on every count making your opinion pointless. Notice in direct contradiction to your ASSumptive opinion the court distinctly says I can use an "automobile"  without a license.  

Due however, to your displayed ignorance, you think the term "automobile" is interchangeable with "vehicle".  They are not.  But this would require more than the mere modicum of common sense and comprehension ability you currently are displaying. 

The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or *by automobile*, is not a mere privilege which a city
can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

and 

The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the
right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and
safety. It 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 purpose of life
and business. Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra

----------


## WaltM

> No  you established that you think that.  What you fail to grasp being a poorly armed troll is that the Supreme court disagrees with you on every count making your opinion pointless. Notice in direct contradiction to your ASSumptive opinion the court distinctly says I can use an "automobile"  without a license.  
> 
> Due however, to your displayed ignorance, you think the term "automobile" is interchangeable with "vehicle".  They are not.  But this would require more than the mere modicum of common sense and comprehension ability you currently are displaying. 
> 
> “The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
> thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or *by automobile*, is not a mere privilege which a city
> can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty,
> and the pursuit of happiness.” [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
> 
> ...


for the sake of argument, let's take the Supreme Court decisions at face value.

What makes you think by "automobile" they mean the car/sudan/SUV/motorcycle you are* operating*? Did they attach a photograph? Did they say "this means every human being as long as he or she has eyes and legs enjoys this right, without any responsibility to others"?

Did they say "riding and operating, sitting in while sleeping, steering" are all the same? What if the court rules later that the automobile, or vehicle, is not a *"usual conveyance of the day"?*

----------


## phill4paul

> why isn't it logical to say a person's right to life means, that any person, any age, any health state, is entitled to free health care? free security?



 Absolute lol-fail.

----------


## loriduan

> for the sake of argument, let's take the Supreme Court decisions at face value.
> 
> What makes you think by "automobile" they mean the car/sudan/SUV/motorcycle you are* operating*? Did they attach a photograph? Did they say "this means every human being as long as he or she has eyes and legs enjoys this right, without any responsibility to others"?
> 
> Did they say "riding and operating, sitting in while sleeping, steering" are all the same? What if the court rules later that the automobile, or vehicle, is not a *"usual conveyance of the day"?*



What if you actually made sense in a single post instead of being a child troll?  

No one said there is "no responsibility to others" except a troll. I have no right to impose on your rights, just as you have no right to impose on mine.  Difference is I will defend mine.  You believe you have none.  Night Troll.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nothing like a little strawman to make your argument. Post fail. 
> 
> 
> 
> *Travel is a right, not a privilege*.


Except on government roads and the air and water, which are regulated by locall, State, and Federal agencies.

----------


## phill4paul

> Except on government roads, which are regulated by locall, State, and Federal agencies.


  If a "public" road was previously a "trail." Should individuals be exempted. A thoroughfare previously established that was later paved by the federal government?

----------


## WaltM

> What if you actually made sense in a single post instead of being a child troll?  
> 
> No one said there is "no responsibility to others" except a troll.


so you believe in responsibility to others?? How nice, so how is that regulated without an issuance of a license, you have still not said "drunks, children, mentally retarded, physically disabled don't have the same right to drive", why not? You're afraid to admit the obvious, that you are all holy about "rights" but you'd not want the conclusion that irresponsible and dangerous drivers can't be barred legally (and you'd either prefer it, or not prefer it). 

you've only joined this forum for a few days and call ME a troll?

----------


## phill4paul

I have a team of 10 Clydesdales carrying me in a wagon. I am not licensed and am driving my carriage on a public thoroughfare. I cannot control my team of 10 Clydesdales and I run over a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

  Each Clydesdale averages 2,000 pounds for a total force of 20,000 pounds. The average automobile totals 4,000 pounds.

  Question. Because I am unlicensed am I not culpable for this accident? How would the courts deal with the fact that I am unlicensed?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If a "public" road was previously a "trail." Should individuals be exempted. A thoroughfare previously established that was later paved by the federal government?


Seems logical to me, especially if it has a legacy of being owned at one time.   (really, the government should sell pretty much all its assets, considering its bankrupt status)

----------


## WaltM

> I have a team of 10 Clydesdales carrying me in a wagon. I am not licensed and am driving my carriage on a public thoroughfare. I cannot control my team of 10 Clydesdales and I run over a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
> 
>   Each Clydesdale averages 2,000 pounds for a total force of 20,000 pounds. The average automobile totals 4,000 pounds.
> 
>   Question. Because I am unlicensed am I not culpable for this accident? How would the courts deal with the fact that I am unlicensed?


and I can't control my bomb or dog when I'm transporting them, so I can't be blamed if they hurt people, right? you can't seriously believe I need a license to own a bomb or dog, can you? Ever heard of "pick up after your dog"?

license means you're trusted to carry out the operation, not that only licensed people are responsible if their acts cause harm, licensing is the attempt to reduce risks and dangers by preventing untrusted people from operating objects in places and times that may harm other people.

----------


## phill4paul

> and I can't control my bomb or dog when I'm transporting them, so I can't be blamed if they hurt people, right? you can't seriously believe I need a license to own a bomb or dog, can you? Ever heard of "pick up after your dog"?
> 
> license means you're trusted to carry out the operation, not that only licensed people are responsible if their acts cause harm, licensing is the attempt to reduce risks and dangers by preventing untrusted people from operating objects in places and times that may harm other people.


  License means that the government attempts to control individuals with certification.  Licensing is indeed an "attempt" to reduce risks. It is also one that fails miserably. It is a way for government to control and profit. Nothing more.

  Your argument is a dichotomy in your differing paragraphs. 

  In the first you say you don't need a license for a bomb or dog. YOU are still responsible for either.

  In the second you are saying you need a license to drive a vehicle. As if the operation of this object is inconsistent with the responsibilities of the former.

----------


## WaltM

> License means that the government attempts to control individuals with certification.  Licensing is indeed an "attempt" to reduce risks. It is also one that fails miserably. It is a way for government to control and profit. Nothing more.


no, it IS more. The government is not in a shortage of excuses to tax and profit off citizens. 

If you claim it fails miserably at reducing risks, can you cite any examples of countries or cities where licensing laws don't exist, and have less accidents per car?

(this is not the same as showing where there are more licensed guns, there are less violent crimes, which I believe is true)





> Your argument is a dichotomy in your differing paragraphs. 
> 
>   In the first you say you don't need a license for a bomb or dog. YOU are still responsible for either.


I don't believe you don't need a license for a bomb, looks like you don't either. What I said is consistent with my belief that licensing reduces unserious people from handing serious and dangerous objects. 




> In the second you are saying you need a license to drive a vehicle. As if the operation of this object is inconsistent with the responsibilities of the former.


so do you propose an alternative way to reduce risks by asking people to prove themselves somewhat capable of driving via licensing? Or do you believe in responsibility to safety of others at all?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

What is the legal framework you are advocating WaltM?

Are you asserting under the Constitution people do not have a right to travel?

Are you asserting it was not universally held people had a natural right to travel the public right of way by whatever means of the day during the first 150 years?

Are you asserting driver licensing did not come about similar to the IRS where it started regulating something commercial and expanded by deceiving people?

Are you arguing for or against the Constitution?

----------


## WaltM

> What is the legal framework you are advocating WaltM?


Whichever maximums freedom for me, and propsperity for a country




> Are you asserting under the Constitution people do not have a right to travel?


Yes, as far as I know, but don't take my advice, I'm not a legal expert. 




> Are you asserting it was not universally held people had a natural right to travel the public right of way by whatever means of the day during the first 150 years?


I don't believe right to travel extends to right to drive a vehicle capable of killing somebody, without some proof of safety and responsibility.




> Are you asserting driver licensing did not come about similar to the IRS where it started regulating something commercial and expanded by deceiving people?


yes, because I believe it started out of outcry for automobile fatalities. 





> Are you arguing for or against the Constitution?


depends on what part of it we're talking about. 

I'd like to get rid of all amendments after the 12th.

----------


## jmdrake

Screw roads.

YouTube - ParaJet Automotive SkyCar

----------


## coronet_500

it would be a start if it is passed ! but i don't think they will let it  pass

----------


## davesxj

The issue here is the paradigm between those who know (Austrian Econ Disciple) and those who are Statists.

Every argument in here becomes moot when you realize Driver's Licenses could and should be a PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.  If you want cheaper car insurance (if you choose to own it), go get licensed by a reputable driver's "license" company.  When you go to court for violating someone's private property right, ie car accident or injury, your "(non)licensure" could be taken into account in court affecting your fine.  

Question:  "How do you stop someone from just giving out $5 licenses to everyone without even testing their driving ability?"  Answer:  The invisible hand.  Insurance companies will notice Cheap-o Drive-o drivers have a high rate of accidents.  Insurance companies no longer accept licenses issued by Cheap-o Drive-o.  Cheap-o Drive-o can't find customers.  Cheapo-Drive-o loses money until it goes out of business.

When a company has a profit motive to make sure they have the safest drivers with their cards you'll see retesting become a norm.  You'll see way more difficult tests to get the license.  When you $#@! up in the possession of a gov't issued DL, does the gov't who issued it get any sort of punishment?  None at all.  When a private company issues bogus driver's cards their punishment is going out of business.

Which model do you prefer?

Think about when you drive down the road.  Some people drive safely and some people drive like $#@!s.  Which of these people have licenses?  Who knows.  What will happen though is if you drive recklessly you will pay, if caught, and if you drive safe you will be fine.  How does a piece of plastic change this?

Granted there's an entire new discussion on private roads and private courts and their regulation by market forces which arises from this.

Not to mention the transparency industry which would grow overnight as soon as the gov't gets its weak ass out of the way.

----------


## mrsat_98

http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Op...rchive&id=7526

Note the last cite at the bottom of the page for those that find interest in english gematria.

HIGHWAYS ‑- MOTOR VEHICLE LAWS ‑- PUBLIC HIGHWAY ‑- DEFINITION.

The term "public highway" as used in the state motor vehicle code (Title 46 RCW) means any place, way, street, etc., where people are accustomed to congregate in automobiles in numbers sufficient to constitute a use by the public.

                                                              - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                                                   May 23, 1963

Honorable Jack Rogers
State Representative, 23rd District
Star Route 1, Box 78
Bremerton, Washington

                                                                                                                Cite as:  AGO 63-64 No. 25

Dear Sir:

            By letter previously acknowledged you requested the opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:

            In view of the definition of "public highway" contained in RCW 46.04.430, what is the geographical application of chapters 46.20, 46.48, 46.52, 46.56 and 46.60 RCW?

            We answer your question in the manner set forth in our analysis.

                                                                     ANALYSIS

            At the outset we note that your question has been answered in so far as it relates to chapter 46.52 RCW by AGO 61-62 No. 63 [[to Prosecuting Attorney, Pend Oreille County on September 19, 1961]].  (A copy of which is enclosed herewith.) We there concluded that chapter 46.52 RCW has application to accidents which occur off the public highways on private roads or other private property in addition to those occurring upon the public highways.

            The Washington motor vehicle code, chapter 12, Laws of 1961, Title 46 RCW, is a comprehensive enactment prescribing among other things rights, obligations and duties of motor vehicle operators.  Bennett v. Seattle, 22 Wn. (2d) 455, 156 P. (2d) 685 (1945).  The motor vehicle laws are regulatory measures resulting from the exercise by the legislature of its police power for the protection of the welfare and safety of the motoring public.  State ex rel. Ralston v. Dept. of Licenses, 160 Wash. Dec. 539 (1962) [[60 Wn.2d 535]];Gnecchi v. State, 58 Wn. (2d) 467, 364 P. (2d) 225 (1961).

            The problem raised concerning the geographical application of the  [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] motor vehicle laws becomes significant in light of the circumstances stated as being the basis of your specific question.

            "There are differences of opinion as to the geographical application of Washington's Motor Vehicle Laws‑-that is, whether they operate in public parking areas, pay parking areas, retail store parking lots, etc. . . ."

            The easy way to provide an answer would be to quote the statute about which you inquire, cite an appropriate rule of statutory construction, attach to it a handy, predetermined conclusion and render our opinion.1/   In order, however, to properly evaluate the problem it is necessary to compare and contrast all pertinent definitions in light of the purpose effectuated by the legislature as evidenced by the motor vehicle laws in general.  State ex rel. Ralston v. Dept. of Licenses, supra.

             [[Orig. Op. Page 3]]

            For the purposes of the act, a public highway is defined in RCW 46.04.430 as:

            "'Public highway' includes every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of cities and towns."

            And private road is defined as follows in RCW 46.04.420:

            "'Private road or driveway' includes every way or place in private ownership and used for travel of vehicles by the owner or those having express or implied permission from the owner, but not by other persons."

            We first note what we deem to be the main contrasting feature, evidencing legislative purpose, in the above sections.  The definition of public highway is written in terms of use, i.e., whether any "way or place is open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel" is a factual inquiry answered by the extent of the public use without regard to the characteristic of property ownership.2/

             [[Orig. Op. Page 4]]

            The definition supplied for private road or driveway is first limited by the fact of private ownership and secondly by a restricted manner of use.  In order to be considered private the "way or place" must be limited in its use to the owner himself and to only those persons having express or implied permission from the owner, and none other.

            If the legislature had intended that a public highway exist only on publicly-owned land it would have so stated.  Compare RCW 46.24.010, footnote 2, supra.  Instead, we are provided with a guiding principle, i.e., "every way or place in the state open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel" is a public highway for the purposes of the motor vehicle code.  It therefore becomes necessary to determine whether certain designated property is open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel in order to determine the extent of the geographical application of those sections of the code wherein the term public highway is employed.

            It has been held in at least three jurisdictions that the extent of use by the public is the factor which determines whether a way or place is to be characterized as public or private.  InEbert v. Incorporated Village of Garden City, 196 N.Y.S. (2d) 878 (1960), the court held that a municipal parking lot was included within the meaning of New York's definition of highway.  That court cited and approvedKoutsky v. Grabowski, 150 Neb. 508, 34 N.W. (2d) 893 (1948), wherein it was held that a road was a public highway, notwithstanding the fact that it was privately owned and maintained, so long as the road was open to the public generally.3/   And inBennett v. Seattle, supra, our court held that a road remained a public highway although it had been closed to public travel and limited in its use to a private company.

             [[Orig. Op. Page 5]]

            Under ordinary circumstances the owner of property can control who may enter upon it.  A formal dedication to public use, however, is not necessary to greatly limit that control.  For many purposes a property owner, especially when his property is used for commercial purposes, loses control over who may enter upon his premises.4/

             [[Orig. Op. Page 6]]

            In AGO 45-46, p. 280 [[1945-46 OAG 280 to Department of Transportation on July 28, 1945]], this office quoted with approval the following language found inCity of Clayton v. Nemours, 353 Mo. 61, 182 S.W.2d 57 (1944):

            "'In the instant case, sufficient for the purpose of this review, Glen Ridge avenue was devoted, although not dedicated, to the public use by acts of the owners.  It was not taken over by the municipality.  In so devoting the use of their property, the owners constituted Glen Ridge avenue ade facto although not a de jure public street within the meaning of statutory and ordinance provisions, the word public, when applied to highways, not being restricted to connote ownership alone but in proper instances being employed to describe the use.  In determining whether a way is a public or private highway, the use to which the way is put; i.e., whether public or private, is of greater importance than its ownership, its mode of creation or its designation as public or private; because it would tend to create confusion and danger to the traveling public if privately owned highways open to and used by the general public enforced their own rules of the road, free from legitimate public regulation, upon travelers leaving the publicly owned highways and entering upon the privately owned ways; for instance, a requirement of operation on the left hand side of the way et cetera.  Consequently: "The law of the road extends to all public highways, however created, and may also be applicable to roads not public highways, if used for travel."  40 C.J.S., Highways, p. 256, § 236, subsec. b.  To the extent of the public interest thus created by the owners, they subjected Glen Ridge avenue to reasonable police regulations in the furtherance of the public safety, health, and welfare.  * * *'"



            In view of the more restrictive definition of highway found in RCW 46.24.010, and of private road found in RCW 46.04.420, it can only be concluded that the legislature had the more broad concept of public place in mind when enacting the definition of public highway found in RCW 46.04.430.  "Every way or place open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel" has reference to a way or place open to all the public without distinction, Mullen v. Fayette, 85 N.Y.S. (2d) 64, 67 (1948), rather than reference to an absolute right in the nature of  [[Orig. Op. Page 7]] ownership.  RCW 46.04.430 would have been couched in similar terms to RCW 46.04.420 had the legislature intended to include the concept of public ownership as a condition in its definition of public highway.

            In view of the regulatory purpose of the motor vehicle code, State ex rel. Ralston v. Dept. of Licenses, supra, and the more restrictive definitions found elsewhere in Washington law, RCW 46.04.420; RCW 46.24.010, chapter 309, Laws of 1927, we conclude that any section of the motor vehicle laws wherein the term "public highway" is employed should have application wherever people are accustomed to congregate in automobiles in numbers sufficient to constitute a use by the public.

            We trust the foregoing is of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

JOHN J. O'CONNELL
Attorney General

DEAN A. FLOYD
Assistant Attorney General

                                                         ***   FOOTNOTES   ***

1/State ex rel. Ralston v. Dept. of Licenses, 160 Wash. Dec. 539, 544 (1962), supra:

            "Thus, we have here a situation necessitating a judicial evaluation of statutory language, and implementation thereof, in terms of purposeful legislative activity‑-a task which any reasonably prudent jurist would readily agree is usually most difficult.  The easy way would be to rely on an appropriate maxim of statutory construction, attach it to a handy, predetermined conclusion, and pronounce judgment.  It is at best a tenuous, difficult undertaking to attempt to articulate the real basis of a decision; i.e., what the conglomerate mass activity of legislators did or did not accomplish and effectuate, in terms of legal sanctions, by enacting or formalizing given language into statutory law.

            "The automobile is a useful machine in our society, but it can also be a deadly weapon.  The annual statistical report of the Washington State Patrol, Accident Records Division (1961), contains this information:

            "'There were 79,126 reported motor vehicle traffic accidents in the State of Washington for the year 1961, in which 32,907 persons were injured and 579 were killed.  This compares to 75,129 accidents occurring in Washington during the year 1960, in which 30,080 persons were injured and 561 were killed.  This is an increase of 5.3 per cent in total accidents, 9.4 per cent in number injured and 3.2 per cent in the number of traffic fatalities over 1960.'

            "The need for reasonably effective regulatory procedures with respect to those who operate motor vehicles is indeed great.  Furthermore, the magnitude of the problems involved increases with each year. Effective licensing can be, and is, a means of restraining unfit or irresponsible operators from endangering the lives of those who operate motor vehicles in a safe and responsible manner."

2/When the legislature intended the fact of public ownership to be taken into consideration, it was clearly so stated.  An example is the more restrictive definition of highway found in RCW 46.24.010:

            "'Street or highway' means the entire width between boundary lines of every way or place, publicly maintained, when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel."

            The present language of RCW 46.04.430 first appears in Washington law in § 1 (X), chapter 188, Laws of 1937.  The prior statute § 2 (g), chapter 309, Laws of 1927, expressly excluded property owned by private persons.  That statute was as follows:

            "(g) 'Public Highway.'  Every way or place of whatever nature open as a matter of right to the use of the public for the purposes of vehicular travel.  The term 'highway' shall not be deemed to include a roadway or driveway upon grounds owned by private persons."

3/The Nebraska court reached its conclusion notwithstanding the following restrictive definition of highway set forth at page 897 of the court's opinion:

            "Section 39-741, R.S. 1943, provides in part as follows: '(5) The term "highway" includes every way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular travel, but shall not be deemed to include a roadway or driveway upon grounds owned by private persons, colleges, universities or other institutions.'"

            Also, cf.Nygaard v. Stull, 146 Neb. 736, 21 N.W. (2d) 595 (1946).

4/A property owner may not exclude a person from his premises on account of race or creed, if the premises are used as a place of public accommodation.  RCW 9.91.010;Anderson v. Pantages Theatre Co., 114 Wash. 24, 194 Pac. 813 (1921).  An owner of a shopping center may not exclude union picketing though the streets and ways in the center are privately owned.  Cf.Freeman v. Retail Clerks Union, 58 Wn. (2d) 426, 532, 363 P. (2d) 803 (1961).  Religious groups may not be excluded from using the streets of a company town for purposes of propagandizing their beliefs.  Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S. Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946).

----------


## osan

> Now that I have your attention can we please get to the bottom of this.
> 
> http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2...text/hb875.htm


Out-$#@!ing-_standing_ - especially this:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime"

HELLO!

Now let us get that point across to the feds and all others who would act contrary to this truth.

----------


## pcosmar

> good way to attract wreckless drivers,


I would think attracting Wreckless drivers would be a good thing.
I have never had a wreck.

----------


## John Taylor

> I would think attracting Wreckless drivers would be a good thing.
> *I have never had a wreck.*


Except on these threads.

----------

