User Panel
Posted: 6/20/2001 4:02:54 AM EDT
For those of you that might have become dis-interested in the thread, I recently found some strong evidence that it's a right. SGB is giving me a run for my money though.
Thought some of you might be interested in the update: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=30974&page=1[/url] The good stuff starts on page 3. |
|
If it's a [b]right[/b] then can someone who's consistently failed their driving test continue to drive? Can I drive an eighteen wheeler even though I don't have a commercial license? If I can be permitted to operate the foot controls, does my 4 year old granddaughter have the right to steer the car on a public street?
Eric The(exasperated)Hun[>]:)] |
|
those tests and licenses are enacted to standardize the right to drive. so that everyone knows the rules of the road (the test) and that everyone is equally capable of taking proper responsibility for what might happen on the road (theoretically anyway, this is the licensing and insurance requirement.)
all of the above are laws passed in the name of safety. yes, they restrict driving, but it's a right nonetheless. how is it any different from the 2nd amendment? most states require a license to carry and some even require a safety test. but just because Big Brother or the states might put some restrictions on it, that doesn't make it any less of a right. wouldn't you agree? driving a car is no less of a right than our RKBA. it's just a little bit more regulated, that's all. talk about infringement. [:)] |
|
Quoted: driving a car is no less of a right than our RKBA. it's just a little bit more regulated, that's all. talk about infringement. [:)] View Quote Well one MAJOR difference is the RKBA is SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in teh Constitution as a RIGHT. I haven't yet found that type of language re: driving (a car, a wagon, a buggy etc) What the Constitution DOES say is that rights NOT specifically enuerated fall under the jurisdiction of the states. (Amend 9 & 10) So, in summary, the US Constitution DOES NOT acknowledge your right to drive. However, if your states Constitution does so mention driving, then you have a Constitutionally guaranteed right. |
|
And there is a "right" to welfare.
And there is a "right" to abortions. And there is a "right" to healthcare. And there is a "right" to be happy. And there is a "right" to have your rights read to you. And there is a "right" to have sex with consenting children. Yeah, there are a lot of things people think they have a "right" to do or have, simply because they want them. But in the end, the only "rights" we have are the restrictions on government power found in the constitution. If it ain't in there, then no matter how strongly you [i]feel[/i] you should have that "right," you don't have it. |
|
Essentially, this whole discussion is a problem of semantics - God-given rights as compared to state acknowledged rights.
Both type of rights exist. The state CANNOT deny a man a God-given right. Things that we want to be our "rights" that are NOT God given are state regulated. |
|
Quoted: Yeah, there are a lot of things people think they have a "right" to do or have, simply because they want them. But in the end, the only "rights" we have are the restrictions on government power found in the constitution. If it ain't in there, then no matter how strongly you [i]feel[/i] you should have that "right," you don't have it. View Quote OMG you could not be more WRONG!!! The Constitution tells you basic rights it gives you nothing only tells you what you already have not GIVES. BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUION DOES NOT MEAN ITS NOT A RIGHT! |
|
State of n.y. specifically explains that having a license/driving a vehicle is a PRIVILEDGE....easily revoked for being a bad boy/girl.......[smoke]
|
|
Especially a comm. drivers license, which is now, primarily federal mandated....(nice, how the feds find thier way into your wallet!)
|
|
***And there is a "right" to have your rights read to you. This is not a right. Law Enforcement has a duty to inform you of your rights, if, and only if, they are going to question you about matters relevant to an offense you have been arrested for. If you got arrested for a traffic warrant, there is no requirement to read you your rights. The whole Miranda thing isn't so much about a new "right" created for persons arrested as it is a procedural rule for getting evidence admitted into court. There is no "right" to drive a motor vehicle on a public road or highway. Public roads are built, maintained and regulated with public money. The key word is "regulated." There have to be some standards if the roads are to be safe for travel. Without some legal authority to regulate traffic on public roads, like stop signs, speed limits and driver's licenses, the roads would be inherently unsafe. The is a constructive right to free movement in Constitution, but that right does not give someone the right to trespass in order to travel. Public roads are governed by necessary rules to insure safety. If you cannot or refuse to abide by those rules, you are, in effect, trespassing. |
|
Just because it's not listed in the Constitution does not mean it not a right, that's what Amenmant 9 is all about.
Also, the Bill of Rights was not meant to grant rights, but protect what the Founding Fathers considered to be the most important God given rights, or inaliegnable rights that you were born with. Has anyone gone to the previous thread and looked at some of the court cases I've posted? |
|
Quoted: Just because it's not listed in the Constitution does not mean it not a right, that's what Amenmant 9 is all about. Also, the Bill of Rights was not meant to grant rights, but protect what the Founding Fathers considered to be the most important God given rights, or inaliegnable rights that you were born with. Has anyone gone to the previous thread and looked at some of the court cases I've posted? View Quote I have.[:)] Its a privilege. sgb |
|
The Constitution tells you basic rights it gives you nothing only tells you what you already have not GIVES View Quote BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUION DOES NOT MEAN ITS NOT A RIGHT! View Quote Just because it's not listed in the Constitution does not mean it not a right, that's what Amenmant 9 is all about View Quote |
|
You do have the right to free, unrestricted travel in public areas.
You do not have the right to drive. Your car is commercial, whether you're using it for business or not. You don't really own your car. If you did, you could change the number on your plate without asking them. If you did own your car, you wouldn't have to pay rent on it every year (their only $30 a year in Wa now!). If you owned your car, you wouldn't have to worry about emmisions. You gave up your right for the priveledge when you signed that drivers license contract with the state. As a side note, you don't own your home, your children or any other possesion in this country. If you did, you could change your street address, quit paying property taxes, change your name, change your kids name, or anything else. Why, again, did we get our children Social Security Numbers? Maybe so we can tattoo it on their forearms later... That's what you get for wanting that tax deduction.... |
|
As global citizens, you all will be granted public transit as part of Sustainable Development and will no longer need privately owned motor vehicles.
|
|
Originally Posted By Imbrog|io: As global citizens, you all will be granted public transit as part of Sustainable Development and will no longer need privately owned motor vehicles. View Quote Can I bring my assault rifles on the bus???? [:D] |
|
Avtomat, you are correct that the Constitution does not "give" us rights, but neither does it function to restrict the power of government, as you suggest. It grants certain powers to the government. The difference may be subtle, but it is nevertheless important. In my defense, I quote a portion of Federalist No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton:
It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government. But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired. View Quote (Edited because I can't do bold within a quote.) |
|
cont.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights. On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved"? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights. View Quote BTW, Sweep, I looked at the case citations you made, and they are interesting, worth a further look, particularly [i]Adams v. City of Pocatello[/i]. |
|
Avtomat, you are correct that the Constitution does not "give" us rights, but neither does it function to restrict the power of government, as you suggest. It grants certain powers to the government. The difference may be subtle, but it is nevertheless important View Quote |
|
Driving is a right.
You have the right to drive absolutely anything you want and you do not need any kind of licence, registration, or any of that crap. BUT... If you want to drive on a road that is paid for by the government (or rather by the money they took from everybody) then you must comply with their guidelines for licensing, registration, speed limits, etc. There is nothing that prevents 12 year olds from driving cars out in a field or that prevents a person with multiple DUIs from driving a jeep out in the desert on a dirt road. Good lord, I wish that firearms were handled the same as vehicles. If they were, then I could own and shoot anything I wanted so long as I kept it on private property, |
|
Quoted: Good lord, I wish that firearms were handled the same as vehicles. If they were, then I could own and shoot anything I wanted so long as I kept it on private property, View Quote EXACTLY. This puts the lie to these farthead Leftists that say guns should be registered becasue cars are registered. There is ABSOLUTELY NO registration requirement for car ownership. Would God the same were true for guns. |
|
Avtomat, I think we may see the issue mostly the same, and I agree that the idea of rights as restrictions on government power makes sense. I just didn't agree with application you made from that.
We the people did not grant the federal government the power to restrict or regulate our right to travel (except perhaps as part of commerce). We also did not restrict the states from doing so as part of federal constitution, as you point out. But that does not imply that the states have the right to do so, it merely means that the federal constitution did not speak on the matter. Whether or not the people of the various states granted that power to their state governments (and whether such a grant would have been appropriate) is a separate matter. Again, I'm not not sure we really disagree fundamentally, just pointing out why I didn't like the way you expressed it originally. |
|
BostonTeaParty: There are 2 issues. The right to travel. Most people here would say that is one of the unlisted rights, and cannot be restricted. The other is the right to drive. Do you have a right to fly airplanes? Because that would be an easier claim to make. If you own a plane how can the government restrict your ability to use it in the atmospher that belongs to no person?
Same thing with the (non-existent) right to drive. The roads were built by society. Society has the right to regulate the operation of private vehicles on PUBLIC roads. |
|
Quoted: You do have the right to free, unrestricted travel in public areas. You do not have the right to drive. Your car is commercial, whether you're using it for business or not. You don't really own your car. If you did, you could change the number on your plate without asking them. If you did own your car, you wouldn't have to pay rent on it every year (their only $30 a year in Wa now!). If you owned your car, you wouldn't have to worry about emissions. View Quote What? I think you have ownership and restrictions on usage's that may cause harms to others (and thus be regulated) confused. You gave up your right for the privilege when you signed that drivers license contract with the state. View Quote Right for the privilege? You don't have a right to operate your private property on public roads. As a side note, you don't own your home, your children or any other possession in this country. If you did, you could change your street address, quit paying property taxes, change your name, change your kids name, or anything else. Why, again, did we get our children Social Security Numbers? Maybe so we can tattoo it on their forearms later... View Quote Children are not a possession. Again I think your confusing issues. Ownership is one thing but what your talking about is Sovereignty. |
|
Is driving a right or privilege well maybe both sides are partly correct. Lets look at it this way, there is no right to either own or drive a Motor Vehicle any more then there is a right to own a Color TV or Stereo if they are all luxury items or can be considered not necessary for daily life. When Cars were first available they were owned mostly by the rich who used them as status symbols since they were not very reliable and horses where still the normal mode of local transport. So at that time there was no right to have and use them. But as cars and trucks became more common they started to become an important part of our life. They in fact changed the way we lived and where we lived, we no longer had to live near where we worked and shopped. We could live out in the country and work in the city, yes we would have to drive to work maybe drive for over an hour just to get to our job but we could do it if we wished. And because we chose to live where there were no stores to buy our groceries we had to drive to buy our food and everything else we needed to live. But this is now how most of the people who do not live in the city live, and even they sometimes work in a different city then they live in. A car or truck is now a very real part of how we live, and since in most cases public transportation is not available not having a car is not only a big hardship but can not only force you to move to the city but can cause you to lose your job. And as to the effect on your job, some jobs require you to have your own car or truck, like if you are in the construction trades like a Structural Iron Worker you sometimes work where there are no busses or other public transportation and you may need to carry some of your tools and equipment with you. Which you can not do using public transportation.
So is driving a right or privilege, the was I look at it, if traveling to work is a right, if going to the store to buy groceries is a right, if living your life as a free person who can chose where and how to live is a right, then having and driving a car or truck is a Right. We have become conditioned by big business and our government to live any place we want because we have a car and are no longer limited by how far we can walk or ride our horse. So driving is now a right since it is now something that is a necessity and is no longer a luxury. As a last thought how would everyone who thinks it is a privilege, get to work and live their lives if they were denied the use of their vehicle and tell the rest of us that not having vehicle would not have a major negative impact on your and your family's life. Sniper for Justice VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die) |
|
Quoted: You do have the right to free, [red]unrestricted[/red] travel in public areas. You do not have the right to drive. View Quote I find this contradicting. As far as everything else you stated, I have to agree that it sure does appear that way. But that's a whole other subject! |
|
Quoted: There is ABSOLUTELY NO registration requirement for car ownership. Would God the same were true for guns. View Quote I don't know where you arrive at that. There is a requirement in every state that you register an automobile. This was one of the powers left to the states as it was not listed as a federal power. For those that keep insisting that driving is a right, I suggest you read some of Clinton's anti-gun arguments. He compares licensing gun owners and registering guns to licensing drivers and registering cars. The argument against that has been that driving is not a right and having to have a license and registering the tool (the car) does not violate anyone's rights, but carrying and owning a gun is a right and therefore cannot be licensed nor can the tool (the gun) be registered. If you keep saying that car ownership and driving are rights, then the anti's can argue that if you will register and license one right (driving and owning a car), why won't you register the other (carrying and owning gun). You are falling right into their trap. |
|
[b]Our court has stressed the basic right of the transient public and abutting property owners to the free passage of vehicles on public highways and the paramount function of travel as overrriding all other subordinate uses of our streets. [i] Sate v. Perry,[/i] 269 Minn. 204, 206.
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a [u]common right[/u] which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and posses property, and to pursue happiness and safety. [i] Thompson v. Smith, [/i] 154 S.E. 579, 583 (Va.-1930) The right of a citizen to use highways, including the streets of the city or town, for travel and to transport his goods, is an [u]inherent right[/u] which cannot be taken from him. [i]Florida Motor Lines v. Ward, [/i] 137 So. 163,167. Also [i]State v. Quigg,[/i] 114 So. 859,862 (Fla-1927); [i]Davis v. City of Houston, [/i] 264 S.W. 625, 629 (Tex. Civ. App., 1924). It has been held directly in a number of cases that [u]at common law[/u] a driver of a vehicle has the right to drive upon any part of the highway. [i]Boyer v. North End Drayage Co., 67 S.W.(2d) 769, 770 (Mo.App.-1934).[/b] [b]The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle. [i]House v. Cramer,[/i] 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907)[/b] [b]The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privalege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarentees of the federal and state constitutions. [i]Adams v. City of Pocatello, [/i] 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). |
|
Quoted: I have.[:)] Its a privilege. sgb View Quote Never surrender huh? I can respect that. But damn if it doesn't irritate me! BTW, SGB=Still Going Bill (Clinton)? Define "is". |
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: Check out what I found. Our court has stressed the basic right of the transient public and abutting property owners to the free passage of vehicles on public highways and the paramount function of travel as overriding all other subordinate uses of our streets. Sate v. Perry, 269 Minn. 204, 206. The right of a 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 his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and posses property, and to pursue happiness and safety. Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583[/blue} (Va.-1930) The right of a citizen to use highways, including the streets of the city or town, for travel and to transport his goods, is an inherent right which cannot be taken from him. Florida Motor Lines v. Ward, 137 So. 163,167. Also State v. Quigg, 114 So. 859,862 (Fla-1927); Davis v. City of Houston, 264 S.W. 625, 629 (Tex. Civ. App., 1924). It has been held directly in a number of cases that at common law a driver of a vehicle has the right to drive upon any part of the highway. Boyer v. North End Drayage Co., 67 S.W.(2d) 769, 770 (Mo.App.-1934). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. [i]Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). Give up yet? ...and to think, I was almost convinced myself it was a privilege! Glad I found this book. View Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok,Ok,Ok,Ok. It breaks down this way. The courts have held that the owner of a motor vehicle has the right for said motor vehicle to operate upon public right of ways, the same as any other mode of transportation. [red]" OPERATE" being defined as used to provide transport.[/red] HOWEVER, nothing has been brought forward to show that the individual has a [u]right[/u] to operate said motor vehicle upon such public right of ways. The physical operation of a motor vehicle by an individual is a privilege granted by the state of residence and acknowledge by all other states in the union. Your servant [0:)] sgb |
|
Sweep, I'm particularly interested in three cases:
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 State v. Quigg 114 So. 859 Chicago Motor Coach Company et al. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22 Problem is I can't find any of them online. An interesting site on Florida motor vehicle law: http://ddi.digital.net/~kenaston/Patr/Traffic.html I think some are making too much of a difference between the right to travel and the right to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. It is true that they are not one and the same. But the former implies at least some degree of the latter. Both common sense and the court cases at which I have been looking make this pretty clear. Maybe some are being led astray by the fallacy that a right is by definition unrestricted (e.g., Larry G's concern about equating driving and bearing firearms). I am aware of no right that is unrestricted. The courts seem to talk, accurately I believe, about rights as those things which may be regulated but not arbitrarily denied by the legislature. (Of course the regulation must not have the effect of arbitrary denial.) My rights do not give me the right to abuse your rights. Because we live in a society, our rights must be regulated in order that we all can achieve the greatest enjoyment of those rights. Any regulation that is not to that end is wrong. Admitting that there can be some regulation or restriction is not the same as saying that any or all restriction is permissible or that the privilege is arbitrarily revocable. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I have.[:)] Its a privilege. sgb View Quote Never surrender huh? I can respect that. But damn if it doesn't irritate me! BTW, SGB=Still Going Bill (Clinton)? Define "is". View Quote Don't mean to irritate, sorry. Just can't quit untill proven wrong. SGB=INITIALS "is" means "is" no waffling. Your servent sgb[0:)] |
|
Here's even more!
[b]The use of an automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the [red]constitutional[/red] guarantees of which the citizen may not be deprived without due process of law. [i] Berberian v. Lussier,[/i] 139 A.2d 869, 872; 87 R.I. 226, 231 (1958). See also: [i]Schecter v. Killingsworth,[/i] 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963) The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways***includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.***The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are [red]constitutional[/red] rights. [i]Teche Lines v. Danforth,[/i] 12So.2d 784, 787 (Miss.-1943). See also [i]Thompson v. Smith,[/i] supra.[/b] Man, I should have started at the back of this book first! |
|
Originally Posted By LARRY G: Quoted: There is ABSOLUTELY NO registration requirement for car ownership. Would God the same were true for guns. View Quote I don't know where you arrive at that. There is a requirement in every state that you register an automobile. . View Quote I can go down to my local dealership, plunk down $60K cash on a Porsche 911, load it onto a trailer, and tow it home WITHOUT signign ANY gov't documents, or obtaining any gov't approval whatsoever. And as long as I never drive it on public roads, it is competely legal for me to NEVER register it. AS such, there is NO REGISTRATION WHATSOEVER for OWNERSHIP of an automobile. If you want to compare ownership of a firearm to ownership of an automobile, there you have it. But the antis are FALSELY comparing use of a car on public roads to private ownership of a firearm when tehy say both should be registered. It is a dishonest tatic they are using, and its high time we called them on it. |
|
Quoted: Don't mean to irritate, sorry. Just can't quit untill proven wrong. Your servent sgb[0:)] View Quote Hell, someone has to! Might as well be you. Didn't mean it in a bad way. At least I can't get physical with ya over the net.[:D] |
|
Quoted: Problem is I can't find any of them online. View Quote I'm getting all this out of a book titled "The Right to Travel". I'm going to try Google.com and see if I can find them. |
|
Quoted: Here's even more! [b]The use of an automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the [red]constitutional[/red] guarantees of which the citizen may not be deprived without due process of law. [i] Berberian v. Lussier,[/i] 139 A.2d 869, 872; 87 R.I. 226, 231 (1958). See also: [i]Schecter v. Killingsworth,[/i] 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963) The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways***includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.***The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are [red]constitutional[/red] rights. [i]Teche Lines v. Danforth,[/i] 12So.2d 784, 787 (Miss.-1943). See also [i]Thompson v. Smith,[/i] supra.[/b] Man, I should have started at the back of this book first! View Quote Don't forget these are lower court rulings and I would hazard, based on STATE constitutions. Will have to look at these a little harder a little later. Never say die!!!!!!! sgb |
|
Sweep, I'm particularly interested in three cases: Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 State v. Quigg 114 So. 859 Chicago Motor Coach Company et al. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22 Problem is I can't find any of them online. View Quote |
|
Quoted: If you want to compare ownership of a firearm to ownership of an automobile, there you have it. View Quote Don't misunderstand. I'm not comparing them, just saying that the anti's do. I think car ownership and driver's licenses are not constitutional rights and cannot be compared to gun ownership, which is a right. As for not registering the car, I suppose you are right. But if you want to use it on public roads, it must be registered. Hey, a 911 ain't exactly an off road vehicle. I guess if you were going to race it on the track such as SCCA or ALMS, and never on a public road, there would be no registration requirement. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Problem is I can't find any of them online. View Quote I'm getting all this out of a book titled "The Right to Travel". I'm going to try Google.com and see if I can find them. View Quote I have found several websites that use the same rulings, but as Avtomat said, I think they might be to old to find online. |
|
Quoted: Don't forget these are lower court rulings and I would hazard, based on STATE constitutions. Will have to look at these a little harder a little later. Never say die!!!!!!! sgb View Quote I'm smiling as I type this: I've got you in a head lock, rubbing your face in the dirt, but I can't seem to keep your foot from kicking me in the balls! |
|
Quoted: Here's even more! [b]The use of an automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the [red]constitutional[/red] guarantees of which the citizen[blue] may not be deprived without due process of law.[/blue] [i] Berberian v. Lussier,[/i] 139 A.2d 869, 872; 87 R.I. 226, 231 (1958). See also: [i]Schecter v. Killingsworth,[/i] 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963) "Deals with revocation of drivers license." ----------------------------------------------- The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways***includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to [u]drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon,[/u] or to [blue]operate[/blue] an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.***The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are [red]constitutional[/red] rights. [i]Teche Lines v. Danforth,[/i] 12So.2d 784, 787 (Miss.-1943). See also [i]Thompson v. Smith,[/i] supra.[/b] Man, I should have started at the back of this book first! View Quote Notice that the court is specific in "Drive a horse..." and stipulates to "Operate an automobile..." Again I think you will find that operate is used in the context of travel, note that the court did not use DRIVE in regards to the rights of the automobile owner. As always. sgb |
|
Sweep, if you are interested, I now have the full court opinions for the three cases I cited earlier, courtesy of a law school friend. They are currently in Microsoft Word format. I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but I thought I'd share them with you as soon as I got them.
Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. Chicago [url]http://mfast.home.texas.net/ftp/Doc3.doc[/url] State of Florida v. Quigg [url]http://mfast.home.texas.net/ftp/Doc4.doc[/url] Thompson v. Smith [url]http://mfast.home.texas.net/ftp/Doc5.doc[/url] |
|
Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages. (Christy v. Elliott, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 220 id. 66; Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960.) Many cases have been decided respecting [***8] the validity and construction of statutes and ordinances regulating their use upon public highways, and it has been[u] uniformly held that the State, in the exercise of the police power, may regulate their speed and provide other [b]reasonable rules and restrictions as to their use.[/b] (Commonwealth v. Kingsbury, 199 Mass. 542; [*206] Christy v. Elliott, supra; State v. Swagerty, 203 Mo. 517; State v. Mayo, 106 Me. 62.)[u] [red]Driven by indifferent, careless or incompetent operators these vehicles may be a menace to the safety of the traveling public, and it has been held that under its authority to regulate the use of the streets a city may enact ...........[/red] Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm sgb |
|
Quoted: Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal [green]rights[/green] upon the streets with horses and carriages. (Christy v. Elliott, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 220 id. 66; Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960.) Many cases have been decided respecting [***8] the validity and construction of statutes and ordinances regulating their use upon public highways, and it has been[u] uniformly held that the State, in the exercise of the police power, may regulate their speed and provide other [b]reasonable rules and restrictions as to their use.[/b] (Commonwealth v. Kingsbury, 199 Mass. 542; [*206] Christy v. Elliott, supra; State v. Swagerty, 203 Mo. 517; State v. Mayo, 106 Me. 62.)[u] [red]Driven by indifferent, careless or incompetent operators these vehicles may be a menace to the safety of the traveling public, and it has been held that under its authority to regulate the use of the streets a city may enact ...........[/red] Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm sgb View Quote I can agree with this because it acknowledges it as a right. Just like with firearms. Even it there weren't any laws governing them, I think that anyone that went out and shot up the town with one would be dealt with severly, but it wouldn't mean that everyone elses right would be taken away. I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be any rules to the road. A good example would be weight restrictions. I'd be highly upset if someone drove down my street with a semi carrying a heavy load and busted up the pavement and side walks. Rights come with responsibility. Anyone that is not responsible with a automobile, or a firearm for that matter, should have that right taken away from them, hence the need for a penal system. However, only after due process should it be taken away. It's been a long day, don't know if I'm making sense or not. |
|
Just ask the judge after your 4th ticket in one year or your DUI conviction. IT IS NOT A RIGHT if you are infringing on my personal safety.
|
|
Quoted: Sweep, if you are interested, I now have the full court opinions for the three cases I cited earlier, courtesy of a law school friend. They are currently in Microsoft Word format. I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but I thought I'd share them with you as soon as I got them. Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. Chicago [url]http://mfast.home.texas.net/ftp/Doc3.doc[/url] State of Florida v. Quigg [url]http://mfast.home.texas.net/ftp/Doc4.doc[/url] Thompson v. Smith [url]http://mfast.home.texas.net/ftp/Doc5.doc[/url] View Quote Nice to have connections! I've skimmed over them, but the only thing I've picked up out of them is that there's a difference for someone that specifically uses the roads to make their money, e.g., motor caoches and taxis, and a natural citizen on his way to visit grandma. This I can probably agree with, but maybe your law school friend can tell us what these rulings mean. I saw where the quotes that were pulled out used in the book I have. Do they put those in there to show there is a difference between what I mentioned above? Also SGB, can't find it right now, but I saw somewhere hat the difference between an operator and a driver is that the former would be the owner of a vehicle used on the roads to make money, e.g., the owner of a motor coach company and the latter the driver being the actual person driving the vehicle, in which in some istances, the person behind the wheel could be operator and driver. Does that clear anything up? If so, please explain what the hell I just said, not sure I understand it myself. |
|
Quoted: Just ask the judge after your 4th ticket in one year or your DUI conviction. IT IS NOT A RIGHT if you are infringing on my personal safety. View Quote I say it's a right that can be taken away if not excercized responsibly. |
|
Great topic! I've been thinking about this issue for some time. By the way, I know someone who flies airplanes and has never had a pilot's license. He says you only need a license to fly in and out of certain airports, other than that, there are damn few regulations that he follows except filing a flight plan. He has his own little airport (dirt strip) and he does as he pleases. Sound familiar?
The DEA came after him one time though. They suspected he was a drug smuggler. Hey, who don't they suspect these days? Interesting character--runs a skydiving school also. Crashed a plane once and walked away (engine failure). I'm ready to tear up my driver's license and vehicle registration, etc. if it becomes a movement. I'm sick of renting what I'm supposed to be the owner of. At the very least, what I'd like to see is a better system that can't be abused and continually used against us as a revenue tool. The states should butt the hell out. They do a crappy job of making sure people are roadworthy drivers. All they really do is ensure that they have a steady revenue stream coming in by setting speed limits ridiculously low, among other scams. Ideally, driver training should be handled by private insurance companies or other organizations. You buy insurance, they make sure you can drive. Make everyone learn to drive on a closed course with a skid car as part of the training. Same thing for those who want to ride motorcycles. We have private driver training now, it just needs to be expanded. BMW has started to do things like this with teen drivers--its a marketing ploy, but I hope it's one that catches on. You buy a car, you get free driver training from a professional driver as part of the package. With competing companies, you can choose which plan suits you best instead of having to live with the one-size-fits-all government solution. Imagine how much money the states could save if they shut down their DMV operations. Let private companies enforce the administrative crap. It would free up the police so they could deal with real motor vehicle crimes and accidents. It would also give them one less way to intrude upon our privacy. Is driving a right? I think it is. But it would be pointless if we had complete chaos on the roadways. Check out places like India if you want to see what that's like. Nobody obeys traffic rules there and thousands of people are killed each year. Their potholes are the size of ponds, by the way. We don't want that. But neither can we continue to allow governments to call the shots and tighten the nooses around our necks. |
|
Also SGB, can't find it right now, but I saw somewhere hat the difference between an operator and a driver is that the former would be the owner of a vehicle used on the roads to make money, e.g., the owner of a motor coach company and the latter the driver being the actual person driving the vehicle, in which in some instances, the person behind the wheel could be operator and driver. Does that clear anything up? If so, please explain what the hell I just said, not sure I understand it myself. View Quote These cases are old and none of them deal directly with the issue of driving a motor vehicle as a right or privilege. However they infer that as the US Constitution as well as the various State Constitutions recognize the right to travel that all rights previously given to other modes of transportation be given to motor driven vehicles. Further upon these vehicles being used upon public right of ways that the STATE establishes rules regulation and policies to govern the public safety. Effectively recognizing that anyone upon compliance with established laws may physically operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway. Being as the right of travel is attached to the privilege of operating a motor vehicle that privilege will not be infringed upon without due process of law. Now I am not an attorney, but that's the best I can make of it.[:)] sgb[0:)} |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.