What is a License?

[Comp-tech]

imported post

Hey guys, have a look at this......could this also apply to a Pistol License?...if so, this could be what we're all looking for!....let me know what you think.

http://www.outlawslegal.com/driving/license.htm[size="+2"][/size]

 

[DreQo]

imported post

I like how the make no mention of gun laws....it avoids the impression that it's just another crazy gun-nut. Now granted, I think the whole driver's license thing is a little questionable, since that license only permits you to operate a vehicle on land owned by the government. You are free to operate any vehicle, with or without license and registration, on any privately owned property, at the discretion of the owner.

With that being said, this does seem to apply well to the "carry" licenses and permits.

Out of curiousity, why did you post this in the Alabama section? Seems like it'd be a good post for the main area.

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

DreQo wrote:

I like how the make no mention of gun laws....it avoids the impression that it's just another crazy gun-nut. Now granted, I think the whole driver's license thing is a little questionable, since that license only permits you to operate a vehicle on land owned by the government. You are free to operate any vehicle, with or without license and registration, on any privately owned property, at the discretion of the owner.

With that being said, this does seem to apply well to the "carry" licenses and permits.

Out of curiousity, why did you post this in the Alabama section? Seems like it'd be a good post for the main area.

Point taken.....I will repost

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

Actually, I know quite a few people that drive without liceneses or license plates, etc.

Problem is, everywhere they go they get stopped and arrested and need to call and pay their lawyer every time....

You gotta have money is all.

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

Actually, I know quite a few people that drive without liceneses or license plates, etc.

Problem is, everywhere they go they get stopped and arrested and need to call and pay their lawyer every time....

You gotta have money is all.

So your saying that the concept outlined at http://www.outlawslegal.com/driving/license.htm has validity?
If that IS the case, go to http://www.outlawslegal.com/jourindex.htm , get the free Jurisdiction challenge and let me know your thoughts on it as well.
Could these two concepts, used together, "pave the way"?.......if "the system" dealt with cases like this often enough, maybe a "business" card type document could be handed to the LEO......wouldn't it be nice to watch him/her walk away saying "have a nice day"?

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

Heheh. An LEO isn't going to read anything and change his mind in the field. I'm going to start saving as much money as I can into a "legal fund" after i get out of uni and once I amass a decent sum I'll start messing with the cops....

And even then I'll have to challenge each issue one at a time. I don't need the IRS, BATFE, State government and the SS after me all at once

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

What does this tell you?.....


Title 18 UNITED STATES CODE Sec. 31
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
Sec. 31. Definitions

When used in this chapter the term -

''Motor vehicle[/b]'' means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;​

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

That's not the same as Alabama's definition:

32-1-1.1

MOTOR VEHICLE. Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for electric personal assistive mobility devices.

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

That's not the same as Alabama's definition:

32-1-1.1

MOTOR VEHICLE. Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for electric personal assistive mobility devices.

While this may be true........

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.​

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.​

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

​

In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24​

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.​

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.​

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...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 not one word withstanding."​

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."​

We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.​