The right to travel

>misinterpreting a law this fucking bad
lol

am i being detained or am i free to go?

>>17091128
Except I'm not?

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

>>17091122
LOL you have a right to travel by horse, bike, or foot.
Go to /n/

>>17091134
>>17091135

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

I could go fucking on with these supreme court cases. There is a CLEAR right to travel in a automobile.

>>17091139
>>17091128
>>17091135
"For much of American history, the right to travel included the right to travel by the vehicle of one's choice, and courts occasionally struck down regional regulations that required licenses or government permission to travel on public roadways. With the advent of the automobile, however, courts began upholding laws and regulations requiring licenses to operate vehicles on roadways. Constitutional scholar Roger Roots has referred to the forgotten right to travel without license as "the orphaned right."[19]"

>>17091139
>>17091142
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the 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.”

>>17091149
>” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the 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.”
If that doesn't tell me i have the same rights as a horse carriage you better link some evidence form supreme court cases that start traveling in an automobile is illegal.

>>17091142
>>17091134
it specifically states in the first paragraph that it was left to the states.
and it has been

why do you care anyway? its not 1850. there's 300 million people and they are all driving 2,000 lb missles. there has to be accountability.

>>17091156
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the 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 the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Reminder DRIVING is a privilege. TRAVELING is a right.

When the officer asks you "how fast were you driving" CORRECT HIM. "I was Traveling, not driving sir."

>>17091159
Because your being extorted by a system(insurance, tickets, ect ect) when they do not apply to you as you are not a commercial driver.


People are being forced to pay for insurance they do not need and its abuse based on our misunderstanding of a word.

>>17091159
see
>>17091163
" RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . ."

Its not up to the state if it violates the constitution. Unjust judgment had been made, and people gave up rather than trying to take it further, but that doesn't mean a state has the right to enforce a law that is literally violating the constitution.

>>17091165
>dude anarchy lmao
yawn

>>17091175
>obey the law
>LMAO YOU ANARCHIST
dude what

>>17091175
>>17091178
Seriously. You read the law, and "say! Oh!I'm NOT a driver! I don't make a profit directly off of driving like a taxi or pizza delivery boy! That means i can drive without plates or a license according to our supreme court.

As long as your car have stickers and plates, its ILLEGAL for anyone to operate it without a license. HOWEVER remove these and turn them in at the dmv and shut down your account its legal to travel in said vehicle.

>>17091190
*" How is that anarchy in the slightest when someone GOES OUT OF THEIR WAY to read and understand their legal rights and the law?

>>17091159
>its not 1850. there's 300 million people and they are all driving 2,000 lb missles. there has to be accountability.
The law doesn't go out of its way to make sure we take classes in not stealing, doing our taxxes, ect ect. If it is up to us to educate ourselves on every other right but driving, in you mind, should be exempt? Should we not have mandatory classes in our schools like we used to, if your concern is public education?

>>17091165
You aren't paying to travel. You're paying for the right to operate a motor vehicle in a public area.

>insurance they do not need
Get the fuck out of my country, Pablo Brown, there's enough of you uninsured niggers and spics roaming around crashing into people who are then shit out of luck because some idiot wrecked their car.

>>17091206
>You aren't paying to travel. You're paying for the right to operate a motor vehicle in a public area
I'm not poperating a mortovehivcle. I operate a AUTOmobile. One is commercial,the other is private, as recognized in the legal sense.

You have the RIGHT tot travel free of charge in an automobile.

>OMG you mean you DONT want insurance to be mandatory??
Yes because its MUCH cheaper to afford insurance when it wasn't mandatory but you wouldn't know anything about that you underage shit. Also I'd rather be able to save the hundreds i drop on it a month into a savings account. Then if something happens to me that isn't strickly automobile related i can actually afford to save me ass because i have spending power as a citizen rather than being nickle and dimed.

I pay property tax, i get taxed out of my pay check, i get taxed every time i buy something. I am always being taxed I constantly pay for public serviced in this way just as everyone else is. You should be angry at the welfar esystem redircting our budget from industrial/frustructure/science/military/ect to socialized benefits more than you should be angry that i have a right tot ravel in an automobile. In fact you're just autistically screeching if anything rather than making counter arguments that im breaking the law or doing any actual harm. There is no need to willing subject myself to a mode of extortion is i legally am in the right to not to.

Everyone has the right to travel. It's the right to use government owned and maintained roads that requires you to pay up some cash. That asphalt isn't free.

File: popoo[1].jpg (57KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 630x420px

>>17091218
>I'm not poperating a mortovehivcle.
Whew, that's good. I don't know the laws in the Vatican offhand.

>>17091219
Yes, like from when you purchase from a business, or own property, your paycheck ect ect.

Why should i, as a citizen, subject myself to more when i know i have the right to do other wise and why would you choose to do otherwise when you could put the money you'd save from maintaining a license to donations, ect ect? Its MUCH better to fund aprivate buisness to fix a road than ask the state. It gets done quicker, and probably better. NO middleman.

>>17091225
>poperating
lol
*operating is obviously what i meant anon.

Please test this in the courts, OP.

>>17091237
It already has been, in our highest order of fucking court no less. Heres supreme court cases;
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/

Basically is people en masse started closing their dmv accounts, a massive freedom habbening would ensue. You can probably get away with it locally. No doubt localjudges and cops have no idea you have a right tot ravel without plates. Carry your title of origin with you at all times.

File: dmv-department-of-motor-vehicle-in-lower-manhattan-new-york-city-BM2C2T.jpg (148KB, 1300x956px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1300x956px

DMV Employees HATE HIM! This Lawyer Saves $200 Per Year With One Simple Secret The Government Doesn't Want You To Know

>>17091309
No mandatory insurance, no mandatory inspection(in state required), no mandatory renewal, immunity to tickets and penalties to drivers(not the laws regarding speeding, cops can still warn or detain your for traffic violation, but will be unable to issue a valid ticket to a driver when you are not a driver. Traveling without a license plate is not a violation of law, he can only do this and punish you if you actually sped and can prove it for instance) is saving hundred/s of dollars a month thousand/s a year minimum.

>>17091226

>the right to do otherwise

Like what?

You need to know a few things about the world:

The law is not holy scripture or high minded philosophy, but people follow it as if it is.
The law is only law as far as the police enforce it, and what the police enforce is law regardless of the legislature.
Only after you have been arrested may you question the actions of the police. Before that point, all resistance is treated by the police as an admission of guilt and a reason to exert more force as you are a guilty person attempting to escape arrest.
You have the option of suing the state over the injustice of the law itself. To do this, you must not be caught breaking it in the first place.
Your third option is to out-force the enforcers. You will die attempting this.
Court costs a lot of money unless you are, yourself, a lawyer.
The police and state have very good lawyers. Most notably, the state itself is made up ENTIRELY of lawyers. And they are all better lawyers than you.

Complain about morals. Complain about ethics. Extoll the virtues of your superior system. Complain about the law in legal terms. It doesn't mean shit until you take it to court. Tell me, do you think you can win in court?

Did the last guy win?

>>17091242

I'm pretty sure they mean that if you can pass the test for a license, you're free to go on any road that you please. And a person's license isn't 'prohibited or permitted at will', there are strict definitions for the suspension of driving privileges and there are strict regulations that enable a person to obtain a license.

You don't know much about constitutional law, do you.

>>17091122
Do it dude, do it for us. Tell the cops it's your right when they stop you ;)

>>17091446
NO. You, as a DRIVER need alicense to drive REGISTERED motovehicles on the road. As a TRAVELER you can drive unregistered automobiles(hence the name chance) on public roads. Its very clear.

https://youtu.be/vHoQhahXwEk

Have fun getting the shit kicked out of you and looked a like a dumbass in front of your local court system.

>>17091436
To turn in my license, registration, ask for my OC, and then drive on public roads without being a registered driver because at that point you and your vehicle are no longer commercial. This IS the law, i have linked several instances proving this and quoted the cases regarding these laws ITT, many people have no idea. Hence why no one is able to fight me with arguments based on cases in the supreme court, just word of mouth.

You have an absolute right to pull the DMV dick out of your mouth, and unregister your car from them, and then drive on the roads no longer as a "Driver" but a "traveler".

A cop willpull you over, ask for registration, always be firm you are NOT a driver. You will probably go to court, as well as a night in the county jail, because they will be confused and it will show you how ignorant people are of the law.

>>17091547
>haha these memes will shame you and others from knowing and acting on your rights! Look everyone, anon is trying to understand his rights!

AM I BEING DETAINED ANON?

>>17091551
So plan on that hapening everyday?
Seems worth it.

>>17091567
Not really, after the first couple of times the local PD gets over it and becomes actually educated.

But i mean, yeah, pulling that state dick out of your mouth is difficult, but its almost like i don't want to continue paying into a system that is abusing people's lack of knowledge on their legal system and the definition of works within them because it morally fucked up and a very expensive burden on the common man.

I figured making a thread on it would be interesting, considering people assume the travelers law only applies to walking, bikes, horses, ect and drop some truth bombs for fun.

>>17091551
but if you're operating the car, you're the driver, and you're driving. it doesn't matter if you're registered or not.
if you're not operating the car but using it for transport, you're travelling.

Are you one of those "sovereign citizen" morons?

>>17091584
No,operating a car does not mean you are a driver. This is in legal talk,anon. You are using the phrase "driver" that the common man had been mistakenly using for a long time. In legal terms, Driver is a licensed commercial persons driving a licensed commercial(commercial=registered).

If you are registered, your car is registered, you are a driver and you drive.

If you are unregistered, and your car is unregistered, you are a traveler.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

>>17091593
>>17091584
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:
"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."

If you are a registered driver, and your car is registered with the dmv(hence the M instead of an A, M(motor vehicle) is commercial A(automobile) is private), you are a driver in the legal term.

If you do NOT have alicense, and do NOT drive a car registered for commercial driving(DMV plates, stickers,ect) you are legally allowed to drive this AUTOmobile on public roads free of license.

>Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

>>17091593
honestly that's pretty fucking retarded. shouldn't matter if your car is registered or not, the act of driving is the same no matter what.

>>17091609
>you are legally allowed to drive this AUTOmobile on public roads free of license.

*drive should be *travel, my bad keep it legal and all

>>17091611
This is the law. Fight me over it.

>>17091609
So what about insurance? If you get into an accident that's your fault and you total someone's shitbox? Are you just going to pay reperations out of pocket?

>>17091609
From Thompson v Smith
>The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking under rules of general application permits to drive an automobile on its streets

"Sir, I wasn't actually driving! I was travelling!"

>>17091438
Acoreing to the copious amount of supreme court cases on the right to travel, yes. Several people have won.

>>17091679
You can do that for them. Or you can refuse and someone can file a lawsuit and attempt to get it out of you that way.

>>17091683
They can not revoke your right to travel by operating an automobile without due process or state of emergency. You have to be deemed in court of law to have it taken away because of your crimes, or, for instance, in case of war, the government can shut it down completely and allow only military acess the roads.

>ITT: Stefan Molyneux sticks his fingers in his ears and screams about how he doesn't have to follow laws because driving and traveling are two different words

>>17091683
>The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking under rules of general application permits to drive an automobile on its streets

no they fucking can't, whose precedent is higher, the supreme court or some shitty city judge?

>>17091128
fuck off ANTIFA

American education sucks; the thread.
We had a containment board for that >>>/pol/ im sorry it is massively popular because yeah, they are fools.

>>17091593
trying this type of lingual gymnastics might fly on a yotsuba b themed imageboard but I want you to get back to us in 6 months to a year after all your court cases have concluded. I'll be here.

PEOPLE FROM POL ARE SO MENTALLY DEFECTIVE THAT THEY CANNOT EVEN CORRECTLY INTERPRET THE LAW

I didnt read all this shit, but I'm glad insurance is mandatory because my Tacoma was hit by a nigger and I didn't pay a dime of the 12k it took to fix it.

>>17092083
I'd say that I wish the board would be nuked again, but then the fags would just spill over into other boards. Probably mostly /b/, though, so it's no one's loss.

>>17091921
So basically act like a ghetto woman? Gotcha.
>i dindu nuffin
>stop signs are raciss
>i need mo money fo ma programs

You do realize this only means that you have the freedom to ride a bus right
All this shit becomes null and void the second you become the one behind the wheel, as per the language already posted


That, and they'll just nail you for driving an unregistered car on the local roads because you can't teleport to the interstate.

Ask me how I know OP doesn't actually own a car.

>>17092020
City judge. The federal courts have no jurisdiction where the interstate commerce clause does not grant it.

Go back we don't want you here faggot

>>17091946
>not reading the thread
Anon literally gave us a shitload of evidence it wasnt breaking the law

>>17092772
Actually re read those supreme court cases. It is clearly stated private automobiles(hence the word AUTOMOBILE BEING USED NOT MOTORVEHICLE) have the SAME rights to freely use public roads as catriages, bikes, ect

>Itt anon points out your rights and laws followed by several proofs of the supreme court backing him and other anons screech autistcally at him with absolutely no solid counter arguements proving him wrong

Wow what a great thread. Fucking idiots dont know driving is commercial and traveling is personally in the eyes of the law. It is not illegal to travel in a private(that is an unregistered vehicle) automobile. It is illegel to travel without a liscense in a motorvehicle(a registered car), but not an automobile.

>>17093086
*carriage like with the horses

>>17092772
>That, and they'll just nail you for driving an unregistered car on the local roads because you can't teleport to the interstate.
>implying there is such a thing

Any road funded by state or goverment for public use is known as a piblic highwaysstreet in legal terms.

At worst, a buisness can have unregistered cars towed off their property. But no law can prevent you from using a public road without due process

>>17092788
No anon. They do not have more power than the supreme fuckig court. Hence why the supreme court is your last chance for justice of you keep pushing your case after losing. If you do not agree woth the city judge its why you always have a way to take your case to higher powers.

>>17092705
Travelers are still subjected to obeying traffic laws. Punishment is enacted differently however as you can not write a traveller(well he can, but it doesnt have to be final)a ticket and force him to pay it unless you can proove he was a driver in court.

>>17093112
stop samefagging

>>17091122
Did you even read the article you just posted, you fucking retard?
>With the advent of the automobile, however, courts began upholding laws and regulations requiring licenses to operate vehicles on roadways

Of course you didn't, reading 4 paragraphs of a wikipedia article before shitposting is just too much to ask apparently...

>>17092772
Nope;
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

File: traplord.jpg (211KB, 1200x375px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1200x375px

/pol/tards really need to stay in there containment boards desu.

>>17093177
Is that your default answer when you are uncomfortable woth the truth?

>>17093210
Alphonse, you need to go back.

>>17093184
Read the thread. A wikipedia article is nothing compared to the supreme court cases being dropped. See post above.

>>17093218
Im sorry you are incapable of intelegent discussion.

>>17093222
I'm sorry you think you're correct Alphonse, stop shit posting and go drive in the highway without plates.

>>17093231
Stfu worst trip go shit up a bike thread with your shit truck.

>>17093235
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>17093219
http://www.snopes.com/supreme-court-rules-drivers-licenses-unnecessary/

Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 — Va: Supreme Court 1930 (available via Google Scholar)
>The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare

>The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets

>In other words, the court held that although the use of public roads is a right which citizens enjoy, local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone.

tl;dr you're a dumbass, and you still need a license

>>17093174
We're not talking about tickets. We're talking about liability for your actions and the consequences thereof. If you fail to yield, blow through a stop sign, if you smash someone's car or run someone over, will you pay out of your own pocket or go on your merry way pretending moral and ethical obligations to your fellow human beings doesn't matter? If you cripple a child, how will you pay for the hospital bills? If you total someone's car, how will you pay him or her back?

>>17091749
Yeah fuck this pedantic bullshit. I hope OP gets ran off the road for his faggotry.

http://www.snopes.com/supreme-court-rules-drivers-licenses-unnecessary/

Welcome to the concepts of constitutional theory and constitutional reality.
Laws aren't letters with some magical power to force people to do or not do something. They are only as powerful as the belief in them is.
The majority accepts the current enforcement situation, even if the letter of the law states otherwise. So arguing with the letter of the law is not going to help you achieving your goal.

>>17093270
>>17093321
Fuck you beat me to it. Should have read the entire thread before respond to this sovereign citizen level bs

>>17093270
>(including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone.
>mortor vehicle

But we are talking about automobiles anon. They are different things in court.

>>17093270
And this is only if they can prove your driving is a threat to public safety. And if you dont agree with them you can take your case to the supreme court

>SNOPES
Oh shit hes retarded

>>17093316
You can sue me if you feel you have legal right to demand compensation. Thats how it works, and thats how it used to work when insurance wasnt mandatory for drivers. You dealt with ot, took someone to court, or you both come to am agreement

>>17093352
Im sorry. *travelling :^)

File: GoBackToPol.jpg (9KB, 292x173px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 292x173px

>>17091122
No, this is not the board for political discussions. That would be /pol/.

>>17093352
>you can take your case to the supreme court
I literally just posted an excerpt from a supreme court ruling that's linked in the snopes article you fucking moron lmao

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366

but yeah please go try driving without a license or plates, let us know how that goes


i bet this dumbass is one of those people who films cops for no reason and constantly asks
>AM I BEING DETAINED? AM I FREE TO GO?

>>17093270
NOTHING in that said it was illegal to travel without a license in an unregistered automobile just that cities and states may impose certain rules but they are subject to question if the citizen feels violated hence why we are able to take our cases to a supreme Court in the first place

>>17093375

-- A city ordinance authorized the chief of police to revoke the permit of any driver who, in his opinion, becomes unfit to drive,

In other words you need be processed and deemed unfit first before they can ever do this to you. You smoking a bowl of stupid, son?

>>17093378
>NOTHING in that said it was illegal to travel without a license in an unregistered automobile just that cities and states may impose certain rules
rules like you need a license and registration? lol jesus christ you're a retard

>but they are subject to question if the citizen feels violated hence why we are able to take our cases to a supreme Court in the first place
yeah and you'll lose, just like the guy in the ruling you were just reading

>>17093385
>In other words you need be processed and deemed unfit first before they can ever do this to you
And you first need a permit before it can be revoked, dumbass

Gotta love it when dipshits on 4chan think they've discovered some loophole in the constitution lol. Reminds me of that guy who tried to barge into a courtroom with his camera out and got tazed haha

>SUPREME COURT TRUMPS ANY LAWS BY CITIES OR STATES
It doesn't really though because the whole US government is based on letting states do what they want under federal guidelines, which is why some states have overbearing strict vehicle inspections and some have none at all.
Idiots.

I really would like to see what happens when one of you 16 year old lawyers tries to drive without a license. The cop is going to laugh in your face when you tell him the constitution says you don't need a license or registration, they're going to impound your car, and you can't afford a lawyer (who would likely laugh in your face just as the cop did)

These kids must not have thought this through, otherwise they'd realize how stupid they sound

>>17093401
You need a licence and registration to DRIVE. Not to TRAVEL. Pls learn the difference between these words. Travelers doesnt strictly mean a passenger like some are mistaken to think. It means anyone on their way to a destination on his own private time though his own means be it horse bike bus or automobile.

>>17093406
Except when your constitutional right are violated. Like in the case here regarding the 10th

>>17093466
>You need a licence and registration to DRIVE. Not to TRAVEL.
Be sure to tell that to the police officer that's pulling you over

>>17093474
jesus christ this sovereign citizen still doesn't get it

>>17093474
If they stop you from piloting an unregistered car, your right to travel isn't being violated. You could still get the fuck out and walk and let them impound the piece of shit. Using a vehicle of your choice isn't included in the "right." Only the ability to move from one place to another. And if your legs work, they have every right to take your car. I hope if you try this the cop breaks your fucking legs to give you something real to complain about. He'll still win the court case even after maiming you.

>>17093484
The police officer isnt a judge. He can detain for up to 24 hours but he can not force an unfair sentencing on me

>>17093361
But what about when there's no doubt you were at fault? Do you do the right thing and own up to your responsibility or do you lie and fight it in court?

>>17093498
Except they do not. A cop has the right to question and detain a cotizen for 24hours max for said questions.

It is stated clearly in many SC cases a privately owned car is regarded as a viable means of travel. If you havent broken the law, they are forced to realease uou due to the lack of chatged to press. If they do charge you for something, and you know its bullshit, you use the court system to fight it.

Or you could run. Not that i would suggest that

>>17093604
As in me, personally? I would pay what i can, and negotiate if i dont have enough. Especially if i know im at fault. Someone shittier will lie and youll have to take them to court or deal with it

>>17093605
And if they take your car, get it out. Not a big deal. People whp are drivers deal woth impoundings too if they dont have insurance on them. Your property wasnt stolen it was relocated and held for a fee.

Tl;DR;
You have a right to travel in automobile unlicensed and registered but cops are too stupid to know this and will detain you for it and local judges will probably give you an unfair ruling anyways and morons will cheer them on because we are all lobsters in a bucket
Freedoms a bitch.

>>17091190
>As long as your car have stickers and plates, its ILLEGAL for anyone to operate it without a license. HOWEVER remove these and turn them in at the dmv and shut down your account its legal to travel in said vehicle.
Not him but is there anyone who has actually done this and driven (or traveled) legally anywhere? Without getting shit on by cops? What court has ever reinforced this in actuality and practicality?

>>17093695
There have been. But not without local pd getting involved because it is suspicious to them. Sometimes(lol badically never) they are cool enough to educate themselves. Most other times youre fighting in court to prove your innocence. Once you get a reputation as the traveler in town they will stop fucking with you as long as youre polite, unless its a new guy getting a power trip

even if you could manage to get away with it

>getting pulled over and detained every 20 miles

>muh freedom of travel
Doesn't extend to cars and public roads
This was ruled in supreme Court a century ago

Stop being edgy faggots

>>17091122
You dumb motherfuckers try to use wordplay in a world that is designed against world play. It's really cute watching you squirm when you meet actual lawyers who study this for a living.

>>17093227
>because cops don't know the law it means you're breaking the law when they stop you for it!

Holy hell you are retarded. A cop is not a judge,. He can detain, he can question, but he can not force me in jail for more then 24 hours without processing me though the system first and that is easily fought back if you know the fucking law like the difference between someone traveling in their automobile and driving in their motor vehicle..

>$50/year is expensive
>shits on automatics and loves manuals
>glorifies literal piles of shit, would save up 12 years of work at burger king to buy an economy car from the 90's

Proof /o/ is almost 100% poorfags

>>17093771
It does.

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the 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 the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the 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.”

>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.”
>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.”
>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.”

File: 4644.jpg (33KB, 248x252px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 248x252px

>not explicitly mentioned in constitution
>Power is reserved for states
>states say you need a license and registration

>>17093801
>implying its fidy dollars a year for inspection,renewals, insurance, ect

whut

>>17093819
My total yearly running costs for my car are not more than $60 including inspections and emissions.
Further, if you were a cool cat like me you'd buy a classic that, in most states, only needs to be inspected a single time, is exempt from emissions and registration is $25.

>>17093815
States say you need a license and registration to DRIVE.

It's been protected in our supreme courts, it obviously holds legal grounds.

Power is reserved for states until they do something unconstitutional like strip a right without due process.

It is literally in our constitution
>"Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right."

>>17093841
are you that nigger that uploaded to liveleak where he filmed himself being pulled over and kept doing logic circles to get the cop to prove he wasn't the driver of the car?

How about this, film yourself doing this every single day, using your car on public roads without licensing and registration. We'll see how serious you are then.

>>17093834
And your insurance?

Travelers aren't forced to pay insurance as that is reserved for drivers.

The reason they can get away with extorting drivers so much is because its considered commercial, hence why driving can be a privileged but traveling can not be deemed one and is dubbed a right..

>>17093859
Aw, triggered? Did I blow you out maybe a little TOO much that you had to resort to ad homs? Wheres your argument anon?

>>17093861
>And your insurance?
How would that be applicable to my argument? Everyone pays different for their insurance.
I pay $14 a year for one of my cars. No, not a typo. Fourteen dollars.
My daily with full coverage is about $200 though.

>op shows up with legal precedent
>is mocked by teenagers who havent even taken a gov class for actually bothering to look into why everyone is allowing the state and insurance companies to regularly buttfuck them
I was not aware of this, op. Unfortunately most people dont have the money to fight the state in a major way like this.

>>17093589
i didnt say he was going to put you in jail you dumb faggot i said hes going to impound your car and give you a ticket

not sure why you're even arguing because i bet your dumb ass has a license anyway

>>17093873
Is that 200 a month or year? whats your insurance,liability, full coverage? Clean driving record? I hope you know this doesn't apply to the average citizen who on average eats 50-150$, even 200$, a month on insurance.

So really, most people pay at the VERY LEAST one thousand dollars a year to be able to keep themselves under the label of a "Driver".

>>17093868
About what lol?
It's not my problem if you want to smack your head against the legal wall, you are just the E-equivalent of this guy.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8d_1413049025&comments=1

All i'm asking is that you practice what you preach. If you can't do that how can i trust a single thing you type?

AM I BING TEY-TANG

>>17093889
The horror. I UN-inpound my car, and fight the ticket off in court. whew.

So fucking hard to be free better keep sucking this dick the government has shoved down my throat.

File: Obama-laughing.jpg (87KB, 1200x839px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1200x839px

>we don't need a license to TRAVEL! You can take it to supreme court and fight it!
>supreme court case where literally this exact thing happens with some retard like OP, he loses
>but that doesn't count because i'm not DRIVING, i'm TRAVELING!

lol

i would love to watch this kid try to explain to a judge how he wasn't actually "operating a motor vehicle," he was just sitting in the driver's seat and using the pedals and steering wheel to make it go places, and you don't need a license for that

speaking of which, did you know you don't actually need a pilot's license to fly a plane? yeah as long as you tell the FAA that you're TRAVELING and not FLYING, you don't need a license!

>>17093905
>implying i need to prove anything and not simply make a thread to inform people and i owe you anything

Oh sweetie. You poor little crab, lost in your bucket.

>>17093908
>and fight the ticket off in court
do you honestly think you'd win that case lmao

i bet your minimum wage high school ass couldn't even afford to get your car out of the impound lot

>>17093912
I explain I was operating an Automobile, NOT a Motor vehicle. Simply put, use your words, know your words.

>>17093896
200 a month with Allstate, a 2014 scion tC.

>Clean driving record?
No lol
2 speeding tickets, an equipment violation (cop didn't understand that a vehicle made before 1974 is exempt from all forms of emission testing in my state)
A court date for riding a motorcycle without a license and a crash involving a motorcycle.

It's funny how people think they know the law by citing wikipedia articles. Since i've been through the system for the very topic of this thread i'm pretty sure i'm a bit more qualified to talk about this.
Cops and the judge will wipe their ass with your wikipedia article, you'll have to pay a lawyer to keep you out of jail. At that point it would have just been cheaper to be legal.

File: 385.jpg (21KB, 317x267px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 317x267px

>>17093921
>I explain I was operating an Automobile, NOT a Motor vehicle. Simply put, use your words, know your words.
you're a funny guy anon

>>17093916
lol try it fag. I'll be here until the thread 404's. Film yourself driving without a plate or license in front of a cop and i'll eat crow.

>>17093922
Did you read the thread or actually belive we have been only citing a Wikipedia article?

We have a list of supreme court cases defending the right to travel in automobile and that one may choose to travel in any vehicle. Be it bike, carriage or automobile.

>>17093934
>travel
but not operate. Until you have an autonomous car, you're stuck with registration.

>>17093938
In this case, travel legally means operate. A source for this claim has already been cited.

>>17093957
>travel legally means operate
Wrong.
by all means:

>>17093930

>>17093938
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”

>" It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”

>>17093961
see
>>17093930

>>17093958
see
>>17093961
He's right.Though the judge should have used operate instead of drive in this instance.

When you are operating a horse drawn carriage, you are a traveler. Not an operator.

>>17093958
you know this guy has a license anyway right? he talks a tough game on the internet but you know he doesn't have the balls to actually do what he says he thinks is legal. Even if he did, the second he got pulled over he'd be stammering and begging the cop not to impound his shitbox that he delivers pizza with as they laughed in his face for being so goddamn retarded

Either that or he will soon be posting a video on youtube of the cops """illegally""" seizing his vehicle and threatening to take them to court (where he will of course represent himself because he's a legal expert, and get easily BTFO'd by even the most retarded of lawyers)

File: 1473198557761.jpg (63KB, 500x493px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x493px

>>17093970
>get proven wrong on a factual level
>JUST TRY YOUR RIGHTS REEEE

lol the salt.

>>17093982
>pizza delivery boy
>not needing a license

Don't talk to me or my laws ever again

0/10 bants
make an effort to be legally accurate next time

Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 — Va: Supreme Court 1930 (available via Google Scholar)
>The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare

>The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets

>In other words, the court held that although the use of public roads is a right which citizens enjoy, local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone.
Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 — Va: Supreme Court 1930 (available via Google Scholar)
>The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare

>The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets

>In other words, the court held that although the use of public roads is a right which citizens enjoy, local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone.


>local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone.

>local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses)

>local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses)

>>17093978
Doesn't matter, whatever excuse you can cite from wikipedia won't hold up in traffic court.
You think you're the first person to think about this?

>>17093982
>he talks a tough game on the internet but you know he doesn't have the balls to actually do what he says he thinks is legal.
I know, that's why I'm simply asking him to do what he claims is legal.

>>17093984
>cries about nobody using their rights
>won't use his rights when asked
BTFO
T
F
O

>>17093958
Im not the op, but he is almost inarguably legally correct. Someone with a lot of money could probably take this to the supreme court and win. Why do you enjoy being cucked?

Jesus fuck get a load of this sovereign citizen, christ people like you are why the bar is so fucking low. You claim that you are 'traveling' with the vehicle, and not driving it, correct? Are you then stating that you have no control over the vehicle?

>>17094002
>Someone with a lot of money could probably take this to the supreme court and win.
Someone already has and they lost

Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 — Va: Supreme Court 1930 (available via Google Scholar)
>In other words, the court held that although the use of public roads is a right which citizens enjoy, local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366

>>17094002
>Someone with a lot of money could probably take this to the supreme court and win
That someone is not him, nor i, nor you and it will never be the case because
It's a $200 ticket, why pay millions to get out of a $200 ticket?
Even if it does go to court, no you will not win, license and registration fees is a valuable income for every state.

>>17093993
>local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses)
With just process.

You aren't going to get pulled over, especially if you didn't break any actuallaws, and then the cop right then and there is going to pull out his hammer and sentence a verdict on me.

The most he can do is write a ticket for something, and summon me to court to tell them if im innocent or guilty.

If i plead not guilty i get a court date arranged and you know the works from there. If i lose on a local level,you keep taking the case higher and higher until its in the SC

>>17094010
BAKA that was someone sueing the city for impounding their car(their legal right), not defending himself as a traveler being punished as a driver.

File: 1377131378193.png (124KB, 635x360px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 635x360px

So on a different track of conversation, how much money would you pay to watch OP get tazed? I'd put up at least twenty bucks, maybe thirty if he cried.

>>17094016
You pay thousands a year in insurance, inspection, all that shit. You could have saved up a lot of money but instead you want to continue taking a government pounding to bully you out of your money based SHEERLY on your own ignorance.

>>17094017
>You aren't going to get pulled over
you are if your car isn't registered
>especially if you didn't break any actuallaws
it's actually a law that you need a license to drive a car
> and then the cop right then and there is going to pull out his hammer and sentence a verdict on me.
Do you think you need to go to court to be given a traffic ticket or have your car impounded you retard? lmfao, he will take your car on the spot and hand you a ticket that's more than you make in a month
>The most he can do is write a ticket for something
and impound your car
>and summon me to court to tell them if im innocent or guilty.
It's not a criminal case you fuckwit lol, you will be given a ticket that you're not getting out of by telling them you weren't actually "DRIVING"
>If i plead not guilty i get a court date arranged and you know the works from there.
You don't "plead not guilty" hahahaha holy shit have you ever even got a ticket before? Do you think you go to trial for a fucking traffic ticket? You obviously have no idea how an actual court works, please stop posting underageb&

>>17094010
>tries to argue using precedent almost completely unrelated to the laws being argued against

>>17094016
>i actually enjoy getting cucked by the state AND large corporations
I hope youre just arguing because youre stubborn.

>>17094001
The thread was about discussing the laws, not OP proving he is doing this. You just want to derail the conversation because you were blown the fuck out so hard on a factual level.

>>17094028
>You pay thousands a year in insurance, inspection, all that shit.
No i don't. My yearly costs are under $500 across 4 vehicles.

>You could have saved up a lot of money but instead you want to continue taking a government pounding to bully you out of your money based SHEERLY on your own ignorance.

I'll let you be the martyr and sit in jail and fight more my rights.

Of course you won't, pussy.

>>17094035
>cites court case from the 1800s that is talking about horse drawn carriages
>somehow a case 100 years more recent that is literally exactly what you're talking about is not relevant

whatever you wanna believe, kiddo

just make sure to shout AM I BEING DETAINED as often and as obnoxiously as possible when they pull you over

>>17094035
>I hope youre just arguing because youre stubborn.
>moves goalposts because he knows he has no legal legs to stand on.
lmao you couldn't write this kind of retardation.

>>17094040
>not OP proving he is doing this
Yeah well i made this thread about proving he's right and that he can get away with it. Until he does he's wrong.

stay btfo sovereign citizen

>>17094022
I mean, when I was a kid and someone broke in to my house the cops tased him on the lawn for free when he charged them so not a whole lot. Might take the officer to the sonic across the street though.

>>17094035
Answer me please: >>17094009

>>17093999
Trips confirm

This whole thread BTFO

>>17094049
>>17094052
Its like you havent even taken highschool u.s. government

>>17094053
>Answer me please:
>this just in: everyday language does not always mean the same thing as it does legally

>>17094034
My bad, it was supposed to be *if you are going to get pulled over

>it's actually a law that you need a license to drive a car
To DRIVE a motor vehicle. Not to OPERATE a automobile as a traveler. (And Traveling translates to an operator in the legal sense. see >>17093961 )

>impound your car
Yes, and that. I can get it out, you can even get it out for free sometimes if you know the guy.

>>and summon me to court to tell them if im innocent or guilty.
>It's not a criminal case you fuckwit lol, you will be given a ticket that you're not getting out of by telling them you weren't actually "DRIVING"
Have you never gotten a speeding ticket before? You literally have the ability to go to the courthouse and plead not guilty on it. Or, you know, to negotiate it off your record. wtf anon are you lawfully illiterate? You can plead not guilty for a traffic ticket and you and the cop who issued it have to go into a court battle over it. Many cases have been dismiss(regarding traffic violations) because the cop didn't even show up.

File: 1489833766939.jpg (15KB, 291x494px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 291x494px

>>17094068
>Its like you havent even taken highschool u.s. government
waiting for proof video.

>>17094068
Nigga, are you operating the vehicle, yes or no?

I genuinely don't understand. What's the difference between a motor vehicle and an automobile? In the legal sense at least.

>>17094087
Not legally, no. Im not sure why thats a hard concept.

>>17094087
AM I BEING DETAINED
AM I BEING DETAINED
I AM TRAVELING AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO STOP ME
I WILL NOT BE ANSWERING ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS
AM I FREE TO G-
>ztztztztztztzt
[screaming]

>>17094054
>get btfo by
But that doesn't mean its illegal. Just that you are subject to lose your rights via due process.

They'd have to find him guilty of a crime unrelated to simply traveling an automobile because that in itself isn't a crime.

How is this a btfo when this is a discussion about your right to travel? Everyone is subject to this, drivers or travelers. Police may question anyone.

>>17094091
OK, so you are not legally operating the vehicle by your own words. Am I then to believe that you are not giving the vehicle any input whatsoever, if the for of pressing the gas or turning the wheel?

>>17094099
*plants gun*
HE HAS A GUN

>>17094087
I am Traveling in my Automobile, sir. I am NOT driving. You do NOT smell marijuana. Am I free to go?

If you are detained, remained silent until the 24 hours are over.

>>17094101
Including, not if the for of

>>17094100
>They'd have to find him guilty of a crime unrelated to simply traveling an automobile because that in itself isn't a crime.
You're talking like cops can't pull you over for doing 46 in a 45 if they chose.

>>17093369

But the topic is clearly auto related. Did you just want to post that image?

>>17094104
Looks like an open and shut case, Johnson! Sprinkle some crack on him and we'll be back at Dunkin' D's by seven.

>>17094101
>Am I then to believe that you are not giving the vehicle any input whatsoever, if the for of pressing the gas or turning the wheel?
No, you are not to believe that because that is not the legal definition of "operating" in this situation.

Don't bother trying

Retarded sovereign citizen faggots like op are so stubborn they refuse to acknowledge anything that threatens their views

I'm sure you feel real unique and special though OP Lmao

>>17094110
Ooo scary better put five more DMV dicks in my mouth

Please force my anus to pay insurance thats liability only because we are poor and have been nickle and dimed to our last penny.

>>17094114
Nigga what? What is the legal definition of operating a vehicle then?

>>17094117
>people literally try to fear monger me because its the only thing they can do at this point and BTFO after BTFO
>all they get is facts from me in return

A good threads work. Always funny to see a bootlicker squirm at your human rights being displayed.

>>17094123
poverty is the only reason you'd try to rationalize exactly like you're doing right now.

>>17094126
Read the thread

>>17094126
Commercial: Driver, driver, driving

Private/personally: Travel, traveler, traveling

>>17094137
*Drive, Driver Driving

>>17094135
Poverty of the mind is the only reason you';re shitposting and not trying to have a real discussion about legal terms, ect ect. You just want to meme and fear monger, you crab.

>>17094143
>you crab
what the fuck kind of insult is that

>>17094137
So the legal definition of "operate" is travel?

>>17094161
Yes.

>>17093819
>having to get an inspection to drive
what kinda commie state is this?

>>17094152
he was too poor to afford a good one.

>>17094164
Guess the machines at my work are traveling then.

>OP makes a bread about right to travel and clears a lot of legal shit up
>shillforce 5 and cucks storm the thread to bitch because he was smart enough to post it somewhere people can collect this information and it not being slid to the last page in 15 minutes
>mfw im learning about rights i never knew i even had and no one can defeat anons argument traveling in an automobile on public roads is legal

BRAVO. BRAVO. Are we now soverign Travelers?

49 USCS § 30301 [Title 49. Transportation; Subtitle VI. Motor Vehicle And Driver Programs; Part A. General; Chapter 303. National Driver Register], "motor vehicle operator's license" means “a license issued by a State authorizing an individual to operate a motor vehicle on public streets, roads, or highways.”

Literally need a license to "operate" a motor vehicle
Lmao

>>17094170
No. They are driving. They have registration.

Any car with plates and stickers is not an automobile, its a motor vehicle. And they are recognized as a commercial vehicle by law.

>>17094137
We're going to go in circles aren't we?

So you claim yourself as the traveler (and the operator of the vehicle) but not a driver. But in an earlier reply (>>17094091) you state that no, you aren't the operator of the vehicle. Which is it?

>>17094178
>Literally need a license to "operate" a motor vehicle
>motor>>17094180
vehicle
>MOTOR VEHICLE

Anon pls read the thread

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8d_1413049025&comments=1

>it is not a crime to travel without identification or a driver's license

>I do not consent
>I do not consent
>I do not consent>I do not consent>I do not consent>I do not consent>I do not consent>I do not consent>I do not consent>I do not consent>I do not consent

>gets fucking tazed and arrested
lmao good job OP.

>>17094175
>being OP and shilling yourself
lmao desperate cucks sovereign citizens are.

>>17094180
Anon, that wasn't me you quoted.

>>17094090
Can someone answer this, I'm trying to understand

>>17094090
Please answer this.

dropping videos of dumb faggots like OP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U33b50GdOWg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2QcE2J1RxQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMCO79R-4mM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnSd-E3Hb3Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmIE5l9daP4

"Right to travel" mongoloids are an argument for eugenics, I swear to Christ.

>>17094179
>No. They are driving. They have registration.
Wow you fucking idiot, i work in a factory with mixing machines.

lmao that was funny af

>>17094196
>>17094197

>>17094179
A car that is register with the DMV is a motor vehicle(hence the M in dmv). A vehicle unregistered at the DMV is an automobile.

>>17091165
>when they do not apply to you as you are not a commercial driver.

You keep bringing this up in the thread, but it's not true.

All states in the country have decided that you have to have a basic level of competency to pilot a car. You have the right to travel by car, but you don't have the right to disavow state law. You can still travel- but the individual states can stop you from using a car in the same way they could have you stop using a horse on a busy street in a major metropolis.

To make your argument correct you'd need to find a state or local government that didn't require a license or plates on your car.

Likewise, most states demand you have insurance as well(only two don't).

Your linked wikipedia article even states this, 'However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]'

>>17094207
Sorry anon, wasn't sure if you were referring to machinery like tractors or not, but i assumed you went shit like tractors.

Anything above 10,000lb(iirc) is automatically a commorcial motor vehicle with out without registration.

>>17094187
Automobile and motor vehicle are the same in the eyes of the law
Stay btfo

>An automobile is generally defined as a self-propelled vehicle that is operated on the highways
And what do you need to operate a vehicle on the highways? A license :^)

>>17094218
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."

American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200

While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:

"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."

International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120

The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'"

City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232

The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.

Wrong.

>>17094238
49 U.S. Code § 32901 - Definitions
"automobile” means a 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

Stay btfo

>>17094215
>All states in the country have decided that you have to have a basic level of competency to pilot a car. You have the right to travel by car, but you don't have the right to disavow state law. You can still travel- but the individual states can stop you from using a car in the same way they could have you stop using a horse on a busy street in a major metropolis.
So in other words, it perfectly legal unless i am doing something that is rightfully endangering the public, as a horse carriage in the middle of a busy street could be redirected. Not illegal. Regulated.

You can be ruled however the city see fit, but you can also take your case up higher and have then over ruled.

>>17094258
How the hell is that a btfo?

>define its primary functions
>have another term for the same machine but differently word for laws sake
>"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."

>American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200

>>17094261
No dumb-dumb, it's legal on federal basis but all the roads in the country besides your driveway are owned by the state they're in and most (all) states require licensing to use their roads.
Have fun driving up and down your driveway like Sisyphus.

>>17094267
>auto mobile is a vehicle
And you still need a license to OPERATE one on public roads :^)

I was also an edgy 13 year old and thought this. I also thought the gubment was corrupt, trying too keep me down, my teachers hated me, highschool was training for slavery desk jobs, made bombs in my garage, thought the country would collapse and minute, spent way too much time on 4chan/video games, and unironically thought anarchy was a good idea.

Then I realized I was just another lazy teenager who hated everything and grew the fuck up, I suggest you do the same, OP.

"every owner of a motor vehicle, including a tractor or motorcycle, and every owner of a trailer shall, during the owner's registration period in each year, register such vehicle as provided in this chapter and obtain a license to operate it for the 12 month period until such person's next registration period. "

" (33) "Motor vehicle" means every vehicle which is self-propelled other than an electric personal assistive mobility device (EPAMD)."

Don't come to Georgia fuck handle

>>17091122
Even if this were legit, it'd require me to not break the law while driving; so, that means no speeding.

Fuck that. I'd rather be able to speed.

>>17094215
>Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]'
None of those cases had ANYTHING to do with the right to travel. None of these men were being tried for being travelers, it was another unrelated issue to the 14th.

>>17094288
Wrong.

>>17094343
See >>17094178

And an automobile is still a motor vehicle as defined by everything you've posted so far

>>17094343
>>17094362
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Also, point me to the law that says a state has the right to control a public road with the exception of scheduled events, or emergency?

>>17094364
States own their roads
They do what they want with them

You need a license to OPERATE an automobile on state owned roads
Fact
Deal with it

>>17094364
The have a right to regulate them, and if someone is suspicious police have the right to question/detain.

But they don't have the right to make an unconstitutional laws that force to to get a license to ever operate a vehicle on the road. These laws, if tried to be enforced, can be fought up to the supreme court.

Deal with it.

>>17094364
>Also, point me to the law that says a state has the right to control a public road with the exception of scheduled events, or emergency?
Any traffic code from any of the 50 states of the USA.

>>17094384
Where does it say anywhere in the Constitution about operating automobiles?

>>17091122
>it's a sovereign citizen that thinks judges have no discretion in their application of the law thread

Reading this thread is actually making me dumber.


Fuck.

Get this shit out of /o/.
Sure it sounds good but does not hold up in modrrn times, by all means, go out, try it, and report back. Till then this discussion needs to be moved.

>>17094384
meant for
>>17094380


>>17094389
Travelers are supposed to obey traffic codes. They are just punished differently when they break them. You get jailed.

>>17094392
"Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

>“The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways...

>It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

>>17094397
Edgy teenagers seem to do that to people

>>17094408
>Travelers are supposed to obey traffic codes.
Funny you should say that, because the traffic code every one of the 50 United States of America says a driver needs to be licensed and have their vehicles registered to be used on public roads.

It's funny how someone was paid to think of all this shit and here you are thinking that you poked a hole in the dam with a toothpick.

W. L. THOMPSON
v.
D. C. SMITH, CHIEF OF POLICE.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

September 12, 1930.
A. S. Hester, for the appellant.

1. AUTOMOBILES -- Permits -- Perpetual Permit -- Revocation -- City's Right to Regulate Use of Streets a Continuing Power. -- An ordinance providing for the granting of permits to automobile drivers provided that the permit should "be perpetual unless revoked as provided in this chapter." No provision was made in the chapter for revocation of the permits; therefore, it was contended that the city could not thereafter by amendment of the ordinance provide for revocation of the permits. But the power of a city to control and regulate the use of its streets is a continuing power to be exercised as often and whenever the city may think proper; therefore, there is no merit in this contention.

File: 1492194169120.jpg (18KB, 533x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 533x400px

>>17094426
2. AUTOMOBILES -- Permits -- Exercise of Police Power not to be Abridged. -- The issuance and revocation of permits to automobile drivers by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the State delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare. The Constitution of Virginia, section 159, expressly provides that "the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be abridged." Consequently, although the ordinance under which a permit is issued states that it shall be perpetual, by amendment or later ordinance the city may provide for the revocation of the permit.

>>17094409
It's just so silly. I mean, all the shit in the world you could get worked up about- firearm control, voting, immigration, labor laws, what have you- and someone chooses to get their Underoos twisted about needing a fucking license to drive?

There are so, so much better ways to spend time.

File: 59chev55825-1.jpg (53KB, 743x230px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 743x230px

>>17094434
3. AUTOMOBILES -- Permit to Drive Automobile -- Municipal Ordinance Providing for Revocation of Permit -- Judge of Municipal Court Acts as Administrative Officer as to Reinstatement of Permit. -- A city ordinance authorized the chief of police to revoke the permit of any driver who, in his opinion, becomes unfit to drive, but further provided that the holder might apply to the judge of the municipal court to have his permit reinstated. When acting upon an application for the reinstatement of a permit revoked by the chief of police, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer, and not in a judicial capacity; and his discretionary power is the same as that of the chief of police, except that the exercise of his discretion may supersede that of the chief of police.

File: 1470909213207.jpg (309KB, 476x621px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 476x621px

>>17094422
>a driver
Yeah. A driver. You dummy. Have you not been paying attention to class?

>>17091122
Does GM have the right to get btfo?

>unironically hating freedoms
>unironic use of obama reaction images

Man the shills are out in full force and getting completely btfo in the process. They must want this thread to hit the bump limit quickly to hide this from people by look of the circular arguements

File: 1426343947197.jpg (374KB, 1751x1634px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1751x1634px

>>17094442
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS -- Right of Citizen of Travel and Transport Property -- Use of Ordinary Vehicles. -- 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 possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day. This right is not a mere privilege which a city may permit or prohibit at will.

>>17094434
>The Constitution of Virginia
VS
The Federal court and constitution of america.

WHO WINS?

File: 1486597741151.jpg (30KB, 500x585px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x585px

>>17094444
Operator, driver, traveler are all different words with the same meaning.
Do you even know what context is my dude?

Your wikipedia articles are literally not worth the electricity used to display them to your face.

>>17091919
And now here's the fun part

>The law is only law as far as the police enforce it, and what the police enforce is law regardless of the legislature.
You're going to get arrested anyways.
>Only after you have been arrested may you question the actions of the police.
You can say "i don't consent" all you want but they have their own loopholes to drag you in. You not consenting may give them LEGAL cause to use force to detain you, citing the MOST RECENT laws on the books regarding your behaviour.
>You have the option of suing the state over the injustice of the law itself.
If you have the dosh and care about the issue, you can do this before getting arrested. You probably won't because you don't have the dosh and only care enough to complain on 4chan.
>The police and state have very good lawyers. Most notably, the state itself is made up ENTIRELY of lawyers. And they are all better lawyers than you.
You will spend a very, very long time fighting this in court. If you win, you'll get off, but like the last guy, you won't set a huge nationwide precedent. Like the last guy.

And then the next time you go saying "i am but a traveler, officer"....
>The law is only law as far as the police enforce it, and what the police enforce is law regardless of the legislature.
You're going to get arrested anyways. Go directly to court. Do not pass go. Prepare to spend another $200k.

And the more times you do this, the closer you drive the courts and the legislators to lay down the fucking hammer and make it entirely unambiguous that motor vehicles are now excepted and must be operated by licensed person. At that point, they point you to a 50cc vespa and tell you to shut the fuck up.

>>17094446
Hmm.. Good point.

File: 1466269147285.jpg (109KB, 544x532px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 544x532px

>>17094453
AUTOMOBILES -- Drivers' Permits -- Arbitrary Revocation. -- The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking under rules of general application permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to others of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions

>>17094461
Read the thread.
The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler," is defined as:

"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..."

Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940

TRAVEL
The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as:

"The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense ... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure."

25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717

File: 1466269722674.png (301KB, 396x481px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 396x481px

>>17094455
Drivers licenses are not required by federal law. They are required by state laws

>>17094408
You keep quoting that case but have you even read what it's about?

https://casetext.com/case/thompson-v-smith-24

Its from the 1920s for starters,
and it still states you NEED a permit to operate an automobile on the roads
The case was about his permit being revoked after two convictions in one year instead of three convicitions, which was unlawful and a violation of his 'right to travel'

Holy fuck you faggots are stupid
Quoting shit without knowing the context

>>17094476
So in other words, if this faggy state tried to impose this unconstitutional law, i have the ability to take it to the federal fucking court and have it over ruled? WHEW.

File: wrong1.jpg (54KB, 670x377px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 670x377px

>>17094474
>The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler," is defined as:
Wrong.
Whatever judge you encounter won't give a shit what word you use, it'll all mean the same thing.
Sorry bruv, you're wrong.

File: 1424409952233.jpg (121KB, 544x623px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 544x623px

>>17094476
Freedom of movement means the government cannot, without good cause (like being on parole), prevent you from traveling within the US, living where you choose, or working where you choose. Likewise, there's a right to international travel that means that without good cause, the government can't stop you from leaving the US or re-entering if you're a citizen. Requiring a drivers license to use public roads doesn't stop you from doing that -- there are other ways to travel.


You can travel in a car but not drive one.

>>17094482
>i have the ability to take it to the federal fucking court and have it over ruled? WHEW.
Nope, federal court doesn't care about something this uninteresting, it'll get shot down back to state court where you'll invariably lose.

>>17094478
""(a) It shall be unlawful for any person (other than transients remaining in the the city not exceeding seven days) to drive or operate any motor vehicle upon the streets of the city until a permit so to do has been issued to such person by the chief of police. "

>drive
>motor vehicle
There are those words again!

>>17094495
I already told him to.
He won't because he's a pussy.

>>17094498
>operate
Lmao

The case states you NEED a permit to OPERATE an AUTOMOBILE on public roads (unless you are a visitor staying for no longer than a week)
It makes no distinction between automobile or motor vehicle, we can assume the judge views them as the exact same thing

Do not quote another case from another state where a distinction is made
Its irrelevant and a fallacy

>>17094510
>AUTOMOBILE
Where does it say automobile? please point this out. It says motor vehicle anon. Holy hell how have you not learned your words yet?

>>17094510
Oh look I found another quote from that case

> The chief of police is authorized and directed to revoke the permit of any driver who, in his opinion, becomes unfit to drive an automobile on the streets of the city, with the right to the holder of such permit to apply to the judge of the municipal court to have his permit reinstated."
>automobile
>permit
Lmao

>>17094516
It says automobile Twenty six times in that case

Learn to read, stupid nigger

Not like there's an actual difference between them anyway
Legal definition between the two is automobile is anything under 10,000lb :^)
So a semi truck can't be an automobile

>>17094510

Automobile: A machicle with four wheels

Motor Vehicle=Automobile for hire.

He could be a licensed driver operating a non commercial vehicle and still have his permit revoked is all that sentence implies.

I am asking you, where in our laws, does it state i need a permit to drive my private AUTOmobile on public streets without reason for the city to believe i am an unfit driver?

>>17094548
*drive

Sorry, operate/travel in :^)

>>17094548
It says it two posts up :^)

>>17094548
Also learn some proper legal definitions will you

49 U.S. Code § 32901 - Definitions
>"automobile” means a 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

>>17094557
Automobile refers to all vehicles under 10,000lb.

A motor vehicle is an automobile for hire. Hence why you can use automobile in this sentence, but the fact "DRIVE" is used means he refers to commercial drivers. Aka people with DMV accounts.

A driver is a Traveler(citizen who travels on public roads) for hire.

see
>>17094474

>>17094570
Holy fuck you are stupid

>>17094581
Wow nice comeback. I guess facts are stupid.

>>17093905
Why do people have to be so obnoxious?

File: you.jpg (42KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 480x640px

>This whole thread

AM I BEING DETAINED?

File: hqdefault.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>17094638
Because he's probably a dirty freedom hatin' commie bootlickin, butt-hole violatin', UN-soviegn SISSY of a citizen

>>17091122

You don't seem to understand that even constitutionally protected rights are subject to reasonable regulation. Your only source specifying that no license is to be required for recreational automobile use is Payne v. Massey, however I couldn't find the language you cited anywhere in the opinion; the case was not discussing constitutional law but the law under a Texas statute, which is subject to change and almost certainly has been, and even if the case stood for what you claim it to and it was good precedent, it would only be authoritative in the state of Texas.

So I'm really not sure how you're justifying this leap in logic that because we have a constitutional right to travel and because that right extends to automobiles that means that any licensing system or other automotive regulations are somehow unconstitutional. Even the "shall not be infringed" language of the Second Amendment has not been extended that far, and there's no such language nearly as strong referring to the right to travel.

>>17094658
>leap in logic
>makes his entire post a giant leap in logic

The old laws are still respected until rightfully ruled other wise by the highest orders.

Anon can win this case, in a hypothetical scenario. But only if he was very strick on his deffinitions. There are recent cases that ruled it a right as well if you read the thread.

>>17094676

I don't think you actually read or understood my post. At no point did I argue that something wasn't a right. The very first sentence of my post said "even constitutionally protected rights are subject to reasonable regulation." The leap in logic is assuming that because something is a constitutionally protected right then it must not be subject to reasonable regulation. That's wrong. Is that what you're disputing, or are you misunderstanding something else? I'm not sure how to make this any clearer for you.

>>17094686
That "regulation" is a cop's ability to pull me over for a sobriety test, or jail me for questioning for 24 hours. He then need to pin a crime on me so the court can issue my punishment. I can then go to the court house and then fight this. If i am found guilty of my dangerous driving, i will recieve my punishment, which would include paying the fine, jail and probably ordered to take drivers ed/get a license to be a driver to prove my safety to them.

>>17094702
pay a fine/or

>>17094702

Laws against drunk/dangerous driving are criminal laws, not regulatory. It sounds like the scenario you described implicates your Fourth Amendment rights more than any other. Are you arguing that any laws relating to the operation of an automobile are an unconstitutional violation of your right to free movement? It's an interesting argument but I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that it's legally sound, for a wide variety of reasons.

>>17091122
>sovereign citizen still sperging
at least this thread is reaching bump limit soon

>>17094741
Any law regulating a driver can be almost anything, as this is commercial. Driving is thus, a privilege from the get go, so to say..

However on travelers, you are given a recognized RIGHT(according to laws,SC case, ectect) to travel and automobile falls under this category


>Laws against drunk/dangerous driving are criminal laws, not regulatory
It is "regulation"(regulation=regulate laws) when an officer confronts a suspect over his perceived violation of law. It is criminal law when you are taken to court, plead or are found not guilty of your violation.
.

>>17094203
>youtube
Got the one with the cop just yanking on the guy's window and shattering it after several minutes of "I AM A TRAVELER AM I BEING DETAINED" ?

>>17094741
>Are you arguing that any laws relating to the operation of an automobile are an unconstitutional violation of your right to free movement?
That's basically what he's saying, despite this being thoroughly debunked throughout the thread, and struck down in supreme court cases

>>17094761
*it is criminal law always, the police was regulating this law, and you are taken to court to plead or admit guilt of your violation(you can pay immediately, basically pleading guilty, or ask the judge to negotiate your sentence).

>>17094785
Which ones struck down Travelers using public highway streets in their automobiles to travel, exactly, anon? :^)

Remember your words.

>>17094203
lmao look at the comments of the first one

this is the kind of idiot we're dealing with here. hopefully he tries to pull some dumb shit like this and a cop just shoots him and gets paid vacation for it

>>17094761
>Driving is thus, a privilege from the get go, so to say
>you are given a recognized RIGHT(according to laws,SC case, ectect) to travel and automobile falls under this category

You've made this point before, and as I explained before, just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it isn't subject to reasonable regulation. You are correct that you have a right to travel in an automobile, however that does not mean any laws relating to that right are per se unconstitutional.

>It is "regulation"(regulation=regulate laws) when an officer confronts a suspect over his perceived violation of law. It is criminal law when you are taken to court, plead or are found not guilty of your violation.

Now you're just betraying your misunderstanding of the law. Criminal and regulatory are two different areas of law; they don't magically change into each other based on what part of the legal process you are on. When a LEO pulls someone over for drunk driving he is enforcing the criminal law. Regulatory law is created by government agencies under statutory authority to regulate certain areas of behavior, although there can be criminal penalties for these laws. There are similarities in their subject matter and enforcement but they are more far more distinct than you suggest.

File: IMG_1042.png (237KB, 479x359px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 479x359px

>>17091122
This seems like the fucking stupidest thing to wast time on.

>>17094813
Many of the laws involving using a vehicle on the public roads involves many forms of regulations that translate into criminal law. Correct. Please see my correction of the sentence here >>17094788

But the point still remains,my right to travel on the public highwaystreets is protected and violation of it can be fought back. The cop has every right to pull me over for it would be suspicious to him, and he would have every right ot detain me and impound my car. But i can easily get the charges dropped if you are strict with word definitions, and are a polite and concise with your arguments(or rather your lawyer is).

>>17093921
You're so poor that your car doesn't have a motor?

>>17091122
OP is mad he got a DUI

>>17094837

No, you're misunderstanding the use of the word "regulation." Are you foreign? I assumed you were American since you're discussing American law bit you don't seem to be using words like we do. When a police officer does his job he is *enforcing* the law, not 'regulating' it. Regulatory law refers to an entirely separate area of the law from criminal law. You can't just take the dictionary definition of the word and apply it to the law and assume that's what it means. That's not how the term is used. It is not always criminal law as you "corrected" yourself; it is entirely possible to violate a regulation and be subject only to civil enforcement, with no criminal penalties at all. If you are talking about police officers arresting you for something you are talking specifically about criminal law and its enforcement, there is no regulation going on. You're just taking the dictionary definition of the word and hamfisting it into a legal conversation.

>>17094899
Never had a violation in my life, goodness gracious! Well maybe that one speeding ticket.

>>17094905
My apologies anon. But my point still remains i didn't break a law. He may be enforcing what he thinks is a law, and thats why i have the legal grounds to take him to court over it.

>>17094837
>But i can easily get the charges dropped
This is how you know this retard has never even so much as got a ticket before. He thinks he's going to go to some criminal trial for driving without a license lol.

The cop is going to give you a ticket, impound your car, you're walking home, going to TRAFFIC COURT, the judge is going to tell you you're a fucking retard just like in the youtube video above, and you're going to have to pay the ticket and get a license if you want to drive again

>>17094915
>driving without a license lol
>driving

Theres that word again folks! New to the thread, I see?

>>17094915
>>17094923
Also if the judge, on the local scale tells me to fuck off you take it up higher and higher. Like the others did(who succeeded on the ground that the case was about them being a traveler not a driver)

>>17094914

Ok...? If you have a good legal case that you're innocent, that's good. But what you're talking about then is a challenge to the law as applied to your case, not an argument that the law itself is unconstitutional. I don't see how any of this plays into your larger argument that you have a right to drive a car without being subject to any laws or regulations.

>>17094923
sure, tell the judge you weren't driving, that'll work

>>17094932
By all means, please do it. You'll be freeing us from the shackles of reasonably regulated public highway systems

>>17094938
Yes, you can legitimately win a case like this. And recently it has been mentioned in SC because people in the SC know the law better than a local judge or cop.

>Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the 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 the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

please go fight a fight and win us this and we'll all praise you, in the meanwhile though we're not going to be idiots about it

>>17094952

You keep repeating that you have a right to use an automobile, but all I can do is keep reminding you that rights are still subject to reasonable regulation. Just because you have that right doesn't mean a law relating to it is necessarily invalid. You have to make a specific argument that the law is unreasonable.

>>17094952
>cites a case that has absolutely nothing to do with what he's talking about

nice job being retarded yet again, that case is about police checkpoints that violate the 4th amendment, nothing to do with requiring a license or registered vehicle

>>17094967
You keep repeating that, and i keep reminding you i don't care if i am detained, or if they try to abuse me. If i go to court over it, that is my goal. My goal is tolose as many cases if only to push the case into the supreme court. The only way to make sure you're countries legal systems are in order sometimes is to go and test them for yourself.

>>17094980
>My goal is tolose as many cases if only to push the case into the supreme court.

Someone else already tried that:

Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 — Va: Supreme Court 1930 (available via Google Scholar)
>The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare

>The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets

>In other words, the court held that although the use of public roads is a right which citizens enjoy, local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone.

SPOILERS: It didn't work

>>17094980

OK, so if you're admitting that you're legally wrong, but want to go to court anyway, what is it you keep trying to argue here? No one here can physically stop you from going to court. Why don't you just shut up and go to court instead of just mindlessly repeating your wrong idea on 4chan?

>>17094979
Post the paragraph the sentence was in,. Do it.

>>17094997
I would never admit my guilt, becaus ei am guilty of nothing. I wouldn't resist arrest.

>>17095003
>I would never admit my guilt,

But you already admitted here in this thread that you are legally wrong. I told you that your argument was wrong and your response was that you don't care and you want to go to court anyway and you want to lose as many cases as possible. So you aren't arguing that you're right anymore, because you apparently have no more argument in support of it besides that you just want to go to court. So why are you wasting everybody's time here?

>>17095003
>because i am guilty of nothing

No reading comprehension anon?

>>17095003
Okay, I'm just going to put a little consideration out there for you: maybe you're right. Maybe your interpretation of things is the accurate way to read it. Would the US government, knowing this would in essence ruin their ability to regulate travel and transport in the country, go along with it? Ignore the law, ignore the constitution or any reading of it, just focus on who benefits from what. Would a massive, powerful country be willing to make a change that makes it lose a massive amount of power (and arguably make lives harder for them) just because you want to not need a license?

W. L. THOMPSON
v.
D. C. SMITH, CHIEF OF POLICE.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

>Complainant might have proceeded by petition for mandamus to compel the chief of police to restore his driving permit, or have waited until arrested upon the charge of driving without a permit and then interposed the defense that the provisions of the ordinance under which his permit had been taken from him were void.

^this is what OP is talking about doing. Someone already tried it. They lost.

>But the power of a city to control and regulate the use of its streets is a continuing power to be exercised as often and whenever the city may think proper; therefore, there is no merit in this contention.

>Exercise of Police Power not to be Abridged. -- The issuance and revocation of permits to automobile drivers by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the State delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare. The Constitution of Virginia, section 159, expressly provides that "the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be abridged."

>The right of a citizen to travel and transport property and to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day may, under the police power, be regulated by the city in the interest of public safety and welfare

>The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking under rules of general application permits to drive an automobile on its streets

>Where an ordinance provides that no permit shall be issued to an applicant unless his examination by the chief of police discloses that he possesses such ability and knowledge to safely operate an automobile as in the judgment of the chief of police qualifies the applicant to receive such permit

>>17095028
>The right of a citizen to travel and transport property and to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day may, under the police power, be regulated by the city in the interest of public safety and welfare

>The right of a citizen to travel and transport property and to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day may, under the police power, be regulated by the city in the interest of public safety and welfare

>The right of a citizen to travel and transport property and to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day may, under the police power, be regulated by the city in the interest of public safety and welfare

>The right of a citizen to travel and transport property and to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day may, under the police power, be regulated by the city in the interest of public safety and welfare

>The right of a citizen to travel and transport property and to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day may, under the police power, be regulated by the city in the interest of public safety and welfare

/thread

>>17095028

Yeah OP basically just failed at legal research as well as basic logic and decided he can change the law by going to court endlessly over it (as if he could find a lawyer for his claims or do it himself with his poor language skills) despite the fact that he has absolutely no supporting precedent or novel argument to actually make in court.

>>17095028
>The Constitution of Virginia, section 159, expressly provides that "the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be abridged."
Guess he tried this in the wrong fucking state, buddy. :^)

>>17095033
>threading yourself over something in vigrinia's constitution that could probably be argued against in the SCOTUS

NOT SO FAST!

>>17095044
He didn't take it to the highest court either. The madman tried but he gave up.

File: Jurisdiction_chart-1024x791.jpg (176KB, 1024x791px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1024x791px

>>17095044
And you posted a case from DC Circuit Court, DC isn't even a state, and Circuit Court isn't even the highest state court...

Thanks, try again later

>bump limit

>>17095044
>this idiot actually thinks he can take "i don't need a drivers license because i'm not driving a motor vehicle, i'm traveling in an automobile" all the way to the supreme court
fucking LOL

>>17095112
>>17095080
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/112/112.US.495.html


"The Supreme Court
, in
Arthur v. Morgan
,
112 U.S.495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of."
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907)

>>17095156
My bad, wrong link.

http://realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm

>An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supersede all other laws in our nation, - the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer's state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S. Constitution."

>implying police have the right to act on unconstitutional acts because the state or city says so

>>17095156
>1907
Anon.

>>17095195
Doesn't mean shit if its from 1907 and you know it.

>>17095207
Anon.. You know you're trolling for proof even though you're to pussy to go drive without a license and plates beacuse you know you're wrong.

>>17095216
T-model cars had a 4 cylinder engine. We still use those.

For giggle, tell me the top speed of a for 4 cylinder t-model car.

>>17095223
For giggles? Why you're desperately Googling for Shitposts, just open a new tab.

>>17095236
I'm sorry. Are you unaware they top out at 60 mph and most highways in cities don't go above 70?

>>17095282
In other words, the cars of yesterday are no different than the cars of today despite certain things like how many cylinders it has, shit like that. The combustion engine is basically unchanged, just improved and with more bells and whistles.

To the knowledge of our SC at the time, it was a "dangerous" machine, but the SC ruled it safe enough to be on the level of a horse carriage. The more you know.

>>17091205
The court of pol/s imagination

>>17091551
And how is this going for you so far?

>>17095613
The context of that conversation was clearly about the mandatory need for drivers ed for a citizen to travel in automobiles in order to be a "Safe" commuter.

>>17095649
Weaponized autism, my friend.

>>17095207
Yeah except for the countless rulings after the fact that state driving (sorry, "travelling in an automobile" you autistic faggot) is not a right, and is subject to regulation of the state

Like that case you were quoting the entire thread, where it explicitly states that a permit is needed for an individual to operate an automobile on public roads
Dont see any more quotes from thay case after someone decided to read past the first fucking paragraph.... retarded cuck kys

>muh rights
>i'd rather die from getting rammed on the road by some incompetent 13 year old than get a license

>>17096675
>13 year olds have the same rights as an adult