Can't Require a License to Exercise a Right

[wrightme]

You should do better than cherry-picking statute that you feel supports your biased view:

66-1-4.11. Definitions.
As used in the Motor Vehicle Code:
<snip>
E. "moped" means a two-wheeled or three-wheeled vehicle with an automatic transmission and a motor having a piston displacement of less than fifty cubic centimeters, that is capable of propelling the vehicle at a maximum speed of not more than thirty miles an hour on level ground, at sea level;
F. "motorcycle" means every motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, excluding a tractor;
G. "motor home" means a camping body built on a self-propelled motor vehicle chassis so designed that seating for driver and passengers is within the body itself;
H. "motor vehicle" means every vehicle that is self-propelled and every vehicle that is propelled by electric power obtained from batteries or from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails; but for the purposes of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act [66-5-201 NMSA 1978], "motor vehicle" does not include "special mobile equipment"; and
I. "motor vehicle insurance policy" means a policy of vehicle insurance that covers self-propelled vehicles of a kind required to be registered pursuant to New Mexico law for use on the public streets and highways. A "motor vehicle insurance policy":
(1) shall include:
(a) motor vehicle bodily injury and property damage liability coverages in compliance with the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act; and
(b) uninsured motorist coverage, subject to the provisions of Section 66-5-301 NMSA 1978 permitting the insured to reject such coverage; and
(2) may include:
(a) physical damage coverage;
(b) medical payments coverage; and
(c) other coverages that the insured and the insurer agree to include within the policy.

Nope, a 'motor vehicle' isn't in and of itself, only 'motor carrier vehicle.'

66-1-4.15. Definitions.
As used in the Motor Vehicle Code:
<snip>
G. "registration" means registration certificates and registration plates issued under the laws of New Mexico pertaining to the registration of vehicles;
H. "registration number" means the number assigned upon registration by the division to the owner of a vehicle or motor vehicle required to be registered by the Motor Vehicle Code;

Nothing about motor carriers there.
Or here, under 'license':

66-1-4.10. Definitions.
As used in the Motor Vehicle Code:
A. "laned roadway" means a roadway that is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic;
B. "law enforcement agency designated by the division" means the law enforcement agency indicated on the dismantler's notification form as the appropriate agency for the receipt of the appropriate copy of that form;
C. "license", without modification, means any license, temporary instruction permit or temporary license issued or recognized under the laws of New Mexico pertaining to the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles;
D. "lien" or "encumbrance" means every chattel mortgage, conditional sales contract, lease, purchase lease, sales lease, contract, security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code [55-1-101 NMSA 1978] or other instrument in writing having the effect of a mortgage or lien or encumbrance upon, or intended to hold, the title to any vehicle in the former owner, possessor or grantor; and
E. "local authorities" means every county, municipality and any local board or body having authority to enact laws relating to traffic under the constitution and laws of this state.

Now, all the way back to the beginning of definitions:

66-1-4. Definitions.
A. Sections 66-1-4.1 through 66-1-4.20 NMSA 1978 define terms for general purposes of the Motor Vehicle Code. When in a specific section of the Motor Vehicle Code a different meaning is given for a term defined for general purposes in Sections 66-1-4.1 through 66-1-4.20 NMSA 1978, the specific section's meaning and application of the term shall control.

And, from the 65, Motor Carrier section:

I. "evidence of registration" means documentation issued by the taxation and revenue department identifying a motor carrier vehicle as being registered with New Mexico or documentation issued by another state pursuant to the terms of a multistate agreement on registration of vehicles to which this state is a party identifying a motor carrier vehicle as being registered with that state; provided that evidence of payment of the weight distance tax and permits obtained under either the Special Fuels Supplier Tax Act [7-16A-1 NMSA 1978] or Trip Tax Act [7-15-1.1 NMSA 1978] are not "evidence of registration";

The part you rested your entire argument upon, appears to be a simple 'copy/paste gone wrong.' Can you prove that definition is relevant through legislative intent?

To quote Jme: "The whole driver's license debacle is rooted in commercial driving of a vehicle as opposed to operating."

Should read as follows: "The whole driver's license debacle is rooted in commerce".

(§ 2(6)):"The term 'commerce' means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State or other Territory, or between any foreign country and any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory, or between points in the same State but through any other State or any Territory or the District of Columbia or any foreign country."

Congress has the authority to regulate commerce, not private life. Anyone tooling around in an automobile (not motor vehicle) is not subject to DMV rules and regulations. The DMV scheme foistered upon the people is the biggest hoax along with the infernal revenue scheme.

Here is how it is done in NM (every state has a similar regulatory scheme and we all run out to register our automobiles; once registered it needs to be insured and one must have a license to "operate" in "traffic"):

	66-1-4.21. Additional definitions.

	As used in the Motor Vehicle Code:

	A. "evidence of registration" means any documentation issued by the department identifying a motor carrier vehicle as being registered with New Mexico or documentation issued by another state pursuant to the terms of a multistate agreement on registration of vehicles to which this state is a party identifying a motor carrier vehicle as being registered with that state; provided that evidence of payment of the weight distance tax and permits obtained under either the Special Fuels Supplier Tax Act [7-16A-1 NMSA 1978] or Trip Tax Act [7-15-1.1 NMSA 1978] are not "evidence of registration";

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.3.4.7 DEFINITIONS: In addition to the definitions in 18.3.1.7 NMAC, as used in this rule:
A. CDL driver means a driver who is required by 49 CFR Section 383.3 or NMSA 1978
Section 66-5-59 to have a commercial driver’s license;
B. driver means a person who drives a motor vehicle as, for, or on behalf of a motor carrier or a
commuter service;
C. MVD means the motor vehicle division of the New Mexico taxation and revenue department.
[18.3.4.7 NMAC - N, 1-1-05]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[idea(l)s]

None of that shows your point. It only addresses motor carrier as in title 58.
To make YOUR point, you would need to show that NV NRS for motor vehicles is linked DIRECTLY to that cfr. You haven't yet.

In addition, all you are doing is attempting to proclaim it to be true. Get on with the actual showing the link between cfr and nrs....if you can.

Declarations are not proofs.

Further, it is much easier to read what YOU type, if you separate it by using the quote tags.

I do not proclaim anything; if, after reading part 355 of CFR Title 49, it is not clear that Nevada is one of every state that has adopted it, I really do not know what to tell you. I have shown you the NM admin code and where to find it. I really do not have the time nor the inclination to shep every state of the unions' code unless I were to live there.

Now as to:"It only addresses motor carrier as in title 58", it sure does only address that, that is the whole point. Go back to an earlier post of mine:

A. "evidence of registration" means any documentation issued by the department identifying a motor carrier vehicle as being registered with New Mexico or documentation issued by another state pursuant to the terms of a multistate agreement on registration of vehicles to which this state is a party identifying a motor carrier vehicle as being registered with that state; provided that evidence of payment of the weight distance tax and permits obtained under either the Special Fuels Supplier Tax Act [7-16A-1 NMSA 1978] or Trip Tax Act [7-15-1.1 NMSA 1978] are not "evidence of registration";

I am pretty sure that when one gets pulled over in NV the first thing being asked as well is: "license and registration please".

The document that you then present, the "evidence of registration" identifies what used to be your "automobile" (49 CFR part 523.3 (a)).
Now however it presents itself as being "a motor carrier vehicle". The form that you applied for, and received from the dmv and that you now present to the neatly dressed state representative in black wearing a sidearm, did not by magic create "a motor carrier vehicle", it had to go through a process to get there.

All forms for the regulation of the "evidence of registration" originate in the dmv forms management plan. In California this is known as "State Records".

Try as you may, there is no "evidence of registration" to be found anywhere pertaining to "automobiles" (49 CFR part 523.3 (a))

“Thus, the mere inquiry into good faith is deemed so undesirable that we must simply acquiesce in the possibility that government officials will maliciously deprive citizens of their rights. [FN45] For my part, I cannot conceive in this case how patent violations of individual rights can be tolerated in the name of the public good. "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protections of the laws, whenever he receives an injury." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).” Briscoe V LaHue 460 US 325, 368

 

[wrightme]

I do not proclaim anything; if, after reading part 355 of CFR Title 49, it is not clear that Nevada is one of every state that has adopted it, I really do not know what to tell you. I have shown you the NM admin code and where to find it. I really do not have the time nor the inclination to shep every state of the unions' code unless I were to live there.

Now as to:"It only addresses motor carrier as in title 58", it sure does only address that, that is the whole point. Go back to an earlier post of mine:

A. "evidence of registration" means any documentation issued by the department identifying a motor carrier vehicle as being registered with New Mexico or documentation issued by another state pursuant to the terms of a multistate agreement on registration of vehicles to which this state is a party identifying a motor carrier vehicle as being registered with that state; provided that evidence of payment of the weight distance tax and permits obtained under either the Special Fuels Supplier Tax Act [7-16A-1 NMSA 1978] or Trip Tax Act [7-15-1.1 NMSA 1978] are not "evidence of registration";

I am pretty sure that when one gets pulled over in NV the first thing being asked as well is: "license and registration please".

The document that you then present, the "evidence of registration" identifies what used to be your "automobile" (49 CFR part 523.3 (a)).
Now however it presents itself as being "a motor carrier vehicle". The form that you applied for, and received from the dmv and that you now present to the neatly dressed state representative in black wearing a sidearm, did not by magic create "a motor carrier vehicle", it had to go through a process to get there.

All forms for the regulation of the "evidence of registration" originate in the dmv forms management plan. In California this is known as "State Records".

Try as you may, there is no "evidence of registration" to be found anywhere pertaining to "automobiles" (49 CFR part 523.3 (a))

“Thus, the mere inquiry into good faith is deemed so undesirable that we must simply acquiesce in the possibility that government officials will maliciously deprive citizens of their rights. [FN45] For my part, I cannot conceive in this case how patent violations of individual rights can be tolerated in the name of the public good. "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protections of the laws, whenever he receives an injury." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).” Briscoe V LaHue 460 US 325, 368

LOL, citing a definition in NM statute and attempting to apply it to NV?


And just when I though the 'connections' you 'see' couldn't get more absurd.


When you present that 'evidence of registration' isn't cited in CFR49 for anything except motor carriers, you just invalidated your entire line of reasoning. But, feel free to go without a license, registration, and insurance and report your results.

The relevant bit you keep avoiding is that the states don't need cfr49 to tell them to regulate motor vehicles. They just need conformance with cfr49 for regulating motor carriers.

Other than that, why ARE you here anyway? Have you posted a SINGLE ON_SUBJECT THING yet having to do with firearms or OC?

 

[idea(l)s]

LOL, citing a definition in NM statute and attempting to apply it to NV?

And just when I though the 'connections' you 'see' couldn't get more absurd.

When you present that 'evidence of registration' isn't cited in CFR49 for anything except motor carriers, you just invalidated your entire line of reasoning. But, feel free to go without a license, registration, and insurance and report your results.

The relevant bit you keep avoiding is that the states don't need cfr49 to tell them to regulate motor vehicles. They just need conformance with cfr49 for regulating motor carriers.

Other than that, why ARE you here anyway? Have you posted a SINGLE ON_SUBJECT THING yet having to do with firearms or OC?

1) Your NV statutes will contain the same, or similar in language statutes as every other state of the union does, you just haven't bothered to look it up.

2) Your contention that CFR 49 only references motor carriers holds no water either, see "automobile" (49 CFR part 523.3 (a)).

3) I do not avoid any relevant bit(s), you still believe that the individual states promulgate their own traffic laws independently from CFR Title 49 which indeed deals with motor carriers, said motor carriers can be regulated by The United States in Congress assembled in conformity with the commerce clause. Not so however when it comes to private rights and/or property.

Reference Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (learn how to substantiate that in a legislative tribunal)

4) Law is not one statute, title, and/or Section. Law is a compilation of all statutory authority, That is why it behooves one to examine Federal and State registers as opposed to codified statutes.

5) Funny you mention : "feel free to go without a license, registration, and insurance and report your results".
You see: ask yourself the question: if driving without "insurance" were illegal, then why are insurance companies authorised to offer "uninsured motorist" coverage...? (driving without insurance is never a good idea but the fine folk at dmv offer a much simpler solution in the form of a bond, just an fyi)

Now, on the rare occasion one gets summoned to appear before the local "traffic judge", one needs to question the judge as to whether the forum is empaneled for judicial review.
Warning: faced with this question, (for almost all of them it is a first) some of them will just about pop a vein in their neck, some will just about have a coronary while sitting on the dais, some of them will start a lecture as to what a stupid question this is since "we are in a court of law, this is a trial for which you promised to appear" etcetera etcetera.
Pay him/her no mind and simply restate the question and that a yes or no will suffice. The answer will always be a yes acknowledging the judicial review setting.

One then needs to present the "court" with the state administrative procedures act and forms management act, here is an excerpt (again: every state of the union has same or similarly worded statute):

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1969
24.285 Final decision and order. Sec. 85:
A final decision or order of an agency in a contested case shall be made, within a reasonable period, in writing or stated in the record and shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law separated into sections captioned or entitled “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law”, respectively.

The only hurdle to overcome at this point is a small detail really:

Act 175 of 1927, Section 761.1 “Complaint” means a written accusation, under oath or upon affirmation, that a felony, misdemeanor, or ordinance violation has been committed and that the person named or described in the accusation is guilty of the offense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Laws- Parties and Procedure on Citation,
Arrest, trial and appeal

Subtitle 1, Parties Subject to the Maryland Vehicle Law.

Section 26-101. Parties to an offense.

(a) Persons committing violations.
Any person who commits violations of the Maryland Vehicle Law,
whether as a principal, agent or accessory, is guilty of the violation.


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

Hmm, odd that one stands guilty even before entering a "plea"...?

But let me not bore you any longer with such small details, I have taken up enough of your time and the private rights/public rights issue seems forever lost in your mind at least. Public rights arise by application or upon notice btw.

The distinction between public rights and private rights has not been definitively explained in our precedents.
Nor is it necessary to do so in the present cases, for it suffices to observe that a matter of public rights must at a minimum arise "between the government and others."
Northern Pipeline Co. V Marathon Pipeline Co., 458 US 50, 69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The chains of habit are generally too small to be felt until they are too strong to be broken.
Samuel Johnson

 

[wrightme]

1) Your NV statutes will contain the same, or similar in language statutes as every other state of the union does, you just haven't bothered to look it up.

If you think that, feel free to research it. I already looked into the NV statutes and posted my position and links.

2) Your contention that CFR 49 only references motor carriers holds no water either, see "automobile" (49 CFR part 523.3 (a)).

Oh, now you are shifting it? YOu presented 355, which was directly about motor carriers.

3) I do not avoid any relevant bit(s), you still believe that the individual states promulgate their own traffic laws independently from CFR Title 49 which indeed deals with motor carriers, said motor carriers can be regulated by The United States in Congress assembled in conformity with the commerce clause. Not so however when it comes to private rights and/or property.

You did exactly that when you bypassed the relevant definitions that I pointed out for you.
You are arguing apples and oranges. I already showed you where NV separates the statute sections dealing with motor carriers for commerce, and private vehicles. You simply don't want to see that which is in disagreement with your desired outcome.

Reference Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (learn how to substantiate that in a legislative tribunal)

4) Law is not one statute, title, and/or Section. Law is a compilation of all statutory authority, That is why it behooves one to examine Federal and State registers as opposed to codified statutes.

Um, no kidding.

5) Funny you mention : "

feel free to go without a license, registration, and insurance and report your results".
You see: ask yourself the question: if driving without "insurance" were illegal, then why are insurance companies authorised to offer "uninsured motorist" coverage...? (driving without insurance is never a good idea but the fine folk at dmv offer a much simpler solution in the form of a bond, just an fyi)

Now, on the rare occasion one gets summoned to appear before the local "traffic judge", one needs to question the judge as to whether the forum is empaneled for judicial review.
Warning: faced with this question, (for almost all of them it is a first) some of them will just about pop a vein in their neck, some will just about have a coronary while sitting on the dais, some of them will start a lecture as to what a stupid question this is since "we are in a court of law, this is a trial for which you promised to appear" etcetera etcetera.
Pay him/her no mind and simply restate the question and that a yes or no will suffice. The answer will always be a yes acknowledging the judicial review setting.

One then needs to present the "court" with the state administrative procedures act and forms management act, here is an excerpt (again: every state of the union has same or similarly worded statute):

And? Report back after you go through it.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1969
24.285 Final decision and order. Sec. 85:
A final decision or order of an agency in a contested case shall be made, within a reasonable period, in writing or stated in the record and shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law separated into sections captioned or entitled “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law”, respectively.

The only hurdle to overcome at this point is a small detail really:

Act 175 of 1927, Section 761.1 “Complaint” means a written accusation, under oath or upon affirmation, that a felony, misdemeanor, or ordinance violation has been committed and that the person named or described in the accusation is guilty of the offense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Laws- Parties and Procedure on Citation,
Arrest, trial and appeal

Subtitle 1, Parties Subject to the Maryland Vehicle Law.

Section 26-101. Parties to an offense.

(a) Persons committing violations.
Any person who commits violations of the Maryland Vehicle Law,
whether as a principal, agent or accessory, is guilty of the violation.


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

Hmm, odd that one stands guilty even before entering a "plea"...?

But let me not bore you any longer with such small details, I have taken up enough of your time and the private rights/public rights issue seems forever lost in your mind at least. Public rights arise by application or upon notice btw.

The distinction between public rights and private rights has not been definitively explained in our precedents.
Nor is it necessary to do so in the present cases, for it suffices to observe that a matter of public rights must at a minimum arise "between the government and others."
Northern Pipeline Co. V Marathon Pipeline Co., 458 US 50, 69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The chains of habit are generally too small to be felt until they are too strong to be broken.
Samuel Johnson

And, blah, blah,blah.....

Whatever.



Obfuscate the opponents into submission, is that your game? You still have failed to show where the state was forced to create the private vehicle regulations in NV.

 

[idea(l)s]

Obfuscate the opponents into submission, is that your game?

It is sad indeed that what I have offered for review obfuscates you. No wonder then that the states' various public regulatory agencies and their attendant rules/regulations obfuscate you beyond comprehension. It sure is easier to belittle, pooh pooh, blah blah and call b.s. then to try and learn about the intricacies of the laws as written. Offering an isolated statute here and there gets you nowhere within the cesspool of legalese.


The fact that the state, nor the United States in Congress assembled, can't impose that which they don't have the delegated authority to, escapes you. Public rights (as opposed to private rights), arise by application or notice. Moving as the Common Carrier is such a public right.

Common carriers petition the Public Service Commission to secure the right to operate within intrastate commerce. This petition secures a "FORM" certifying the usage of this private right after perfecting its application through the local DMV, securing certification in the process upon which registration plates are attached to the "motor vehicle".


Code of Maryland Regulations

TITLE 20 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
20.95.01.03
.03 Definitions.
A. In this chapter, the following terms have the meanings indicated.
B. Terms Defined.
(1) "Commission" means the Public Service Commission of Maryland.
(2) "Company" includes every corporation, association, partnership, group of individuals, or individual owning, controlling, operating, or managing one or more motor vehicles engaged in the transportation of persons for hire over any road between fixed termini, over a more or less regular route, on a more or less fixed schedule.
(3) Motor Vehicle.
(a) "Motor vehicle" includes all vehicles or machines propelled by any power other than muscular used upon the public roads, not on rails, for public transportation of persons for compensation.
(b) "Motor vehicle" does not include a taxicab.
(4) "Operator" means any person engaged in driving a motor vehicle for which a permit has been issued.
(5) "Owner" means the individual, partnership, carrier, or company to whom a permit has been issued.
(6) "Permit" means the permit issued by the Commission.
(7) "Roads" means State or State-aid roads, improved county roads, or streets and roads of incorporated towns and cities in the State.
(8) "State" means the State of Maryland.


Every state of the union has same or similarly worded statutes: common carriers are authorized to "operate" under these FORM driven procedures of the Public Service Commission which in turn substantiates the issuing of certification and registration by the DMV.


Maryland Code: STATE GOVERNMENT: TITLE 10. GOVERNMENTAL PROCEDURES: SUBTITLE 6. RECORDS :
§ 10-604. Definitions.

(a) In general. - In this Part II of this subtitle the following words have the meanings indicated.
(b) (b) Department. - "Department" means a principal department of the Executive Branch of the State government.
(c) (c) Division. - "Division" means the Records Management Division of the Department of General Services
(d) (d) Form. - "Form" means a document that has a standard format for the systematic and repetitive collection, maintenance, or transmission of information.




Every state of the union has this statutory operation of law that substantiates its FORM driven adjudication of public rights.
One can either learn and comprehend the nature of the states' public business and FORM driven procedures or continue to suffer in equity.

The states' administrative procedures act is a good place to start, followed by forms management generally administered through the department of management and budget/states records/forms management.




Let's now review the next piece of the puzzle:


The General Public Laws of Maryland, Codification of Maryland Rules:

Title 20, Public Service Commission
20.95.01.04
.04 Necessity for Permit.

A. A motor vehicle may not be operated over roads of this State until a permit has been obtained from the Commission authorizing its operation.

B. A permit may be issued by the Commission at any time during the year,
and for such length of time as the Commission may deem best for the public welfare and convenience.

C. Permits are not transferable.

D. A charge may not be made for the issuance of a permit under the provisions of these regulations.


Since the conversion of your automobile:


49 CFR part 523.3 (a)

§ 523.3 Automobile.
(a) An automobile is any 4-wheeled vehicle that is propelled by fuel, or by alternative fuel, manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways and rated at less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, except:




Into a motor vehicle, moving about on invalid documentation, (since you were never issued the necessary PERMIT referenced above). The state may, through public policy, impose the usage of invalid documents to tool around in an automobile which now is known as a fiction of law. Fictions of laws are falsities presumed to be true. Fictions of law are the opposite of operations of law:


Operations of Law.

This term expresses the manner in which rights, and sometimes liabilities devolve upon a person by the mere application to the particular transaction of the established rules of law, without the act or co-operation of the party himself.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, page 1243


A fiction of law, secures justice by devious means.
Ballentines Law Dictionary, third Edition, Page 468


If you fail to refute this falsity, now known and operating as public policy, your private rights will be subordinated to the colorful acts of the state.

 

[JmE]

You did a very good job of presenting some of the 'right to travel' information, idea(l)s. I realize there is more but I wanted to give you a bit of praise and encouragement.

 

[JmE]

How, IMHO, this all ties into the right to keep and bear arms...

During early days of automobile registration and licensing, many people may very well have considered it as some do concealed handgun licenses today. We have the right (OC/travel) and the privilege (CC/Operating). Both automobiles and handguns are considered dangerous tools by the public at large. Both have a large body of the public that believe that training and regulation are common sense. However, inherent 'dangerousness' of either tool isn't really a valid reason for one to surrender individual liberty (RKBA & right to travel). I've always perceived a parallel between the right to travel and the right to keep and bear arms. We are further down the road (pun intended) towards accepting a privilege in lieu of a right in the realm of the right to travel. For, as it appears to me, much of the argument FOR the licensing and registration of one's personal and private automobile/motorcycle/scooter/moped/etc can be applied to the argument FOR the licensing and registration of one's personal and private handgun. Serious 'gun control' began with interstate regulation of commerce in firearms; I've read government argument against Wyoming being able to declare in-state manufactured and traded firearms as being exempt from federal regulations because the raw materials were not obtained in Wyoming! IMHO, the long term public acceptance of federal government regulation of a basic liberty (YES, the right to travel is, indeed, a basic liberty) creates, in a sense, an estoppel to individuals' ability to challenge federal and state infringement and encroachment upon the specific basic liberty. Although not impossible to fight through the court system; such encroachments are, for the individual within that individual's lifetime, practically so. I firmly believe that what has happened to the right to travel is essentially the future of the right to keep and bear arms.

What good is an individual Liberty that a specific individual, me in this case, cannot exercise freely in the relatively short time that I have remaining on this Earth? If rights are collective then it's tough nut for me. However, these rights are individual and it is tyrannical upon the INDIVIDUAL level that I cannot freely and fully exercise them while I am alive. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

 

[wrightme]

It is sad indeed that what I have offered for review obfuscates you. No wonder then that the states' various public regulatory agencies and their attendant rules/regulations obfuscate you beyond comprehension. It sure is easier to belittle, pooh pooh, blah blah and call b.s. then to try and learn about the intricacies of the laws as written. Offering an isolated statute here and there gets you nowhere within the cesspool of legalese. If you fail to refute this falsity, now known and operating as public policy, your private rights will be subordinated to the colorful acts of the state.

WHen you attempt to conflate statutes from multiple states, it is you who is obfuscating.


Still awaiting your cite from NV concerning Title 43. We don't use MD or NM statute here.

 

[wrightme]

The fact that the state, nor the United States in Congress assembled, can't impose that which they don't have the delegated authority to, escapes you.

10th Amendment.


That is the fact. You have yet to address it.

 

[marshaul]

I love how some folks can't seem to reconcile the fact that the government has no authority to pass a law with the fact that the government has passed a law.

First, I'd like to remind the forum that I am as big a champion of an unlicensed right to travel (drive) as any on this board.

Then I'd like to argue that the government doesn't need elaborate ruses to enforce unconstitutional abrogations of right. The only thing preventing them from doing so is the courts; therefore, if the courts can be convinced, the act stands, even when they have no authority whatsoever.

Government has never operated on anything loftier than the threat of a gun to your head – they don't give a crap about the principle of consent enough to bother tricking you into giving yours. And it's the same might-makes-right justification which leads to the de facto licensure of that which is a right, contrary to all the government's own logic.

It goes like this: we pass the law, the statist sycophants in the courts don't deign to object, and we threaten to kill you if you don't comply. Nowhere is there some need to trick people into agreeing to this. If you don't agree, they take your property and ultimately your life. End of debate.

 

[idea(l)s]

WHen you attempt to conflate statutes from multiple states, it is you who is obfuscating.

Still awaiting your cite from NV concerning Title 43. We don't use MD or NM statute here.

Very astute observation.

As I have mentioned numerous times: the same or similarly worded statutes can be found in every state of the union, the scheme is set up in identical fashion, look it up.

 

[idea(l)s]

10th Amendment.


That is the fact. You have yet to address it.

Originally Posted by idea(l)s

I did not miss the Amendment you cited but it has no direct impact on what the discussion is about since it is well established where the authority to regulate originates, i.e.; CFR Title 49. If anything it affirms my position: The United States in Congress assembled has the power to regulate commerce, the Commerce Clause was a "power delegated to the United States", no question about it.

 

[idea(l)s]

You did a very good job of presenting some of the 'right to travel' information, idea(l)s. I realize there is more but I wanted to give you a bit of praise and encouragement.

Thank you kindly.

 

[idea(l)s]

I love how some folks can't seem to reconcile the fact that the government has no authority to pass a law with the fact that the government has passed a law.

First, I'd like to remind the forum that I am as big a champion of an unlicensed right to travel (drive) as any on this board.

Then I'd like to argue that the government doesn't need elaborate ruses to enforce unconstitutional abrogations of right. The only thing preventing them from doing so is the courts; therefore, if the courts can be convinced, the act stands, even when they have no authority whatsoever.

Government has never operated on anything loftier than the threat of a gun to your head – they don't give a crap about the principle of consent enough to bother tricking you into giving yours. And it's the same might-makes-right justification which leads to the de facto licensure of that which is a right, contrary to all the government's own logic.

It goes like this: we pass the law, the statist sycophants in the courts don't deign to object, and we threaten to kill you if you don't comply. Nowhere is there some need to trick people into agreeing to this. If you don't agree, they take your property and ultimately your life. End of debate.

Very good points you make. Let's dig a bit deeper and inquire about those "courts". Most of us do not see that all of those rules/regulations originate in the administrative agencies promulgating all the legalese.
There is a "tell" in some of my previous posts:

Vehicle Laws- Parties and Procedure on Citation,
Arrest, trial and appeal

Subtitle 1, Parties Subject to the Maryland Vehicle Law.

Section 26-101. Parties to an offense.

(a) Persons committing violations.
Any person who commits violations of the Maryland Vehicle Law,
whether as a principal, agent or accessory, is guilty of the violation.

This can be found in each states' vehicle code. Since we don't have a similar regime as let's say North Korea, somewhere there must have been a determination made pertaining to our guilt or innocence, since "being guilty" is our status even before we enter traffic court/municipal court or any other of the lower courts adjudicating traffic infractions.

To overcome the conundrum one must turn to the states' administrative procedures act and forms management act. Therein one will discover that the administrative agency in question (dmv) produces the FORM (uniform traffic citation) presented to us by law enforcement which has been tasked with enforcing the violations of said agency's' code. The administrative procedures act states that there is a need for a final determination prior to any party requesting judicial review.
See one of my prior posts

Originally Posted by idea(s)
You see: ask yourself the question: if driving without "insurance" were illegal, then why are insurance companies authorised to offer "uninsured motorist" coverage...? (driving without insurance is never a good idea but the fine folk at dmv offer a much simpler solution in the form of a bond, just an fyi)

Now, on the rare occasion one gets summoned to appear before the local "traffic judge", one needs to question the judge as to whether the forum is empaneled for judicial review.

Warning: faced with this question, (for almost all of them it is a first) some of them will just about pop a vein in their neck, some will just about have a coronary while sitting on the dais, some of them will start a lecture as to what a stupid question this is since "we are in a court of law, this is a trial for which you promised to appear" etcetera etcetera.
Pay him/her no mind and simply restate the question and that a yes or no will suffice. The answer will always be a yes acknowledging the judicial review setting.

 

[wrightme]

Very astute observation.

As I have mentioned numerous times: the same or similarly worded statutes can be found in every state of the union, the scheme is set up in identical fashion, look it up.

NO. It is your claim that needs proven, not mine. It is on YOU to support YOUR claim.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

There is a difference between believing that a government should not do something and believing that it does not have the authority to do it.

I do not believe that government should license concealment. I believe (even though it does not have the authority to license carry) that it has the authority to license concealment.

If you are saying that even the local government cannot ever have the authority to license your dog, then you are a sovereign citizen. If you say that it can, but it shouldn't, then you are the same kind of liberal as the Framers (a conservative or a libertarian in today's terminology).

Sovereign citizens are just anarchists. They believe that government has no authority to do anything. The two might insist there are differences. Whatever differences there are are inconsequential. Both philosophies are pie-in-the-sky, unworkable idealism. Were we to achieve a level of lack of government that would even come close to making these folks happy, we'd have less Liberty than we have now, as bullying by individuals and gangs would become the norm. Good, honest folks would band together for their protection. One or two would take charge of the group, and most would readily accept this internal bullying for protection from the external bullying.

A government, properly structured, given authority by the People, is (ironically) the only way to preserve Liberty. The Framers hit upon the best model yet. It is because we have strayed from that model that we experience government taking authority it was not given.

The key features of that model:

1. Separation of powers horizontally.
2. Separation of powers vertically.
3. Power is granted vertically, from the bottom up.
4. Power is granted least at the top, most at the bottom.

Where we have gotten away from this model:

1. Power is collecting at the top.
2. Power is being granted vertically from the top down.
3. Power is no longer separated vertically (see #2).
4. Horizontal separations are being ignored.

The most key feature of the model was that government was republican. It is now democratic. To preserve a maximum of Liberty requires that we restore federalism and republicanism. It was an ingenious system, but it still required the vigilance of the People to preserve it: as Franklin so wisely informed that lady.

Firstly I have admit that I haven't read all 7 pages of this thread thoroughly. I've agreed with and disagreed with a lot in this thread, so please don't feel singled out. I'm just using your post as a base to jump into the conversation

That being said, <buzzer noise>, wrong. Maybe it's nothing more than semantics, but, Libertarianism aligns with anarchy. The absolute application of libertarian principles can only lead to a society free of any form of traditional government. Some would reject the idea that any hierarchy whatsoever can exist in true anarchy (meaning the rejection of things like capitalism) and that anarchy is not merely the abolishment of state type organizations, but that's for another discussion altogether. There is a youtube video called "the Philosophy of Liberty", you may have seen it already, but here's a link anyway https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBfg8JrF2RI It is about 8 minutes long. It's very basic and generalized but I think it hits home.

Other criticisms of your post and others':

First of all, you assert that the pursuit of perfection should not be fueled. You say that these philosophies that you criticize are not accomplishable, and therefore should not be pursued. I reject that idea and counter that perfection is the only thing we should pursue and that the narrower our aim on perfection, the closer we will be.

You go on to say that our Framers created the best known yet form of government, and I guess you imply that the ideals used align with your ideology, but how could that be possible when your ideology does not allow for reshaping of government structure in the pursuit of liberty? If they rejected the notion of radically reshaping government in the pursuit of liberty and justice then they would have never created what they did. Their implementation was certainly not "the norm"

Secondly, and this may just be more semantics, but I don't understand what you mean when you say that they have authority to do something but perhaps should not do something. In what sense should they not? For what reason should they not? Typically when someone says that a person "should not" do something, they mean that it would be unethical or immoral. If it would be immoral to do then they do not have authority to do it. Authority aligns with morality - morality being the only legitimate basis upon which one person can have authority over another - which generally only provides for authority when you're either a) in the context of family or b) when a mutual and consensual transaction has taken place that establishes that authority

Authority and ability are obviously not the same, so offering the fact that a legislator has written law as evidence that the legislator had authority to do so is just, well, silly. It is entirely possible for someone to do something that they do not have the authority to do. That includes writings laws, imposing taxes, and enforcing punishments for failure to follow laws. I guess what I'm saying is, you can't use law to prove legitimacy of authority because authority is not derived from law, it's derived from morality. To deny this is to deny the very notion of morality - which certainly regulates delegation of authority over other human beings.

Anyway, I mostly wanted to point out the incorrect use of the terms anarchist and libertarian. You obviously aren't either one No offense...

 

[wrightme]

Originally Posted by idea(l)s

I did not miss the Amendment you cited but it has no direct impact on what the discussion is about since it is well established where the authority to regulate originates, i.e.; CFR Title 49. If anything it affirms my position: The United States in Congress assembled has the power to regulate commerce, the Commerce Clause was a "power delegated to the United States", no question about it.

Yes, there IS a question about it. You have not shown where NV uses that as its 'authority' to regulate private conveyance. You have attempted to declare it. It is an empty declaration, and is not a proof.

 

[marshaul]

Very good points you make. Let's dig a bit deeper and inquire about those "courts". Most of us do not see that all of those rules/regulations originate in the administrative agencies promulgating all the legalese.
There is a "tell" in some of my previous posts:

Vehicle Laws- Parties and Procedure on Citation,
Arrest, trial and appeal

Subtitle 1, Parties Subject to the Maryland Vehicle Law.

Section 26-101. Parties to an offense.

(a) Persons committing violations.
Any person who commits violations of the Maryland Vehicle Law,
whether as a principal, agent or accessory, is guilty of the violation.

This can be found in each states' vehicle code. Since we don't have a similar regime as let's say North Korea, somewhere there must have been a determination made pertaining to our guilt or innocence, since "being guilty" is our status even before we enter traffic court/municipal court or any other of the lower courts adjudicating traffic infractions.

That language doesn't say or do what you're claiming. It merely affirms that whoever commits the violation is guilty of it – as opposed to some third party, for instance the car's owner.

Again, government doesn't need to bother with elaborate justifications and trickery in the form of subtle machinations of law. Government simply demands. With a gun.

You see: ask yourself the question: if driving without "insurance" were illegal, then why are insurance companies authorised to offer "uninsured motorist" coverage...? (driving without insurance is never a good idea but the fine folk at dmv offer a much simpler solution in the form of a bond, just an fyi)

Not all states have an "uninsured motor vehicle fee" option (what you call a "bond"), although mine does at $500. California, for instance, has no compunction about declaring it illegal to drive without insurance. I've been to California courts. The best reaction you could hope to get with these sorts of arguments is a laugh. The guys with the robes and the guys with the guns believe their authority is self-justifying. Might makes right.

Incidentally, uninsured motorist coverage makes perfect sense even in states like California (where driving without insurance is strictly illegal), because the mere existence of a law requiring everyone to have insurance doesn't actually mean that everyone on the road has insurance. Duh. Maybe they let it lapse, or a million other things.

 

[marshaul]

Anyway, I mostly wanted to point out the incorrect use of the terms anarchist and libertarian. You obviously aren't either one No offense...

eye95 is explicitly neoconservative and anti-liberterian.