The Right to Travel, pt 2

File: c621.jpg (136KB, 546x700px)

136KB, 546x700px

>>17095276
Its time to stop op.

AM I BEING DETAINED?

I AM A TRAVELLING SOVERIGN CITIZEN. I AM OPERATING MY AUTOMOBILE AND AM ON MY WAY TO COMPLETE MY PRIVATE AFFAIRS. YOU DO NOT SMELL MARIJUANAS. AM I FREE TO GO?

File: 553e33f678488_jamesmay[2].jpg (52KB, 620x417px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 620x417px

Nah fuck that, let's talk about James May.

When's the next season of Reassembler? Will there be one? I need that shit in my life.

File: MULTI TRACK DRIFT.png (88KB, 382x346px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 382x346px

>>17095329
shit

File: Fiesta.jpg (60KB, 1013x374px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1013x374px

>>17095331
New season never.

>>17095331
:(

*cites Articles of Confederation*

>>17095368
For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these cases are:

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

>>17095344
Please. I beg you.

I want to see him reassemble a fucking car, I don't care if it takes the whole season.

>>17095373
Don't forget to tell the courts that you aren't a person, but an individual.

File: smug_ika_2.png (452KB, 679x670px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 679x670px

>>17095373
CASE #1: "Many cases have been decided respecting the validity and construction of statutes and ordinances regulating their use upon public highways, and it has been uniformly held that the State, in the exercise of the police power, may regulate their speed and provide other reasonable rules and restrictions as to their use." Chicago Motor Coach v. City of Chicago 169 NE 221 (1929)

CASE #2: "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 other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579 (1930)

CASE #3: "And, as we have seen, the right of exit is a personal right included within the word "liberty" as used in the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the lawmaking functions of the Congress." Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125 (1958)

CASE #4: "The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law." Shachtman v. Dulles 225 F.2d 938 (1955)

Can we stop now?

So basically..

Auto mobile is a term used for a vechicle with four wheels under 10,000 lbs..

Motor vehicle is an automobile for hire.

Traveler is someone who operates a vehicle on a public road for personal reasonings

Driver is a commercial licensed traveller who drives a motorvehicle.

Even if i dont do it its nice to know this is information. Thanks OP.

>>17095368
"THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.
>inb4 it doesn't count for this specific mode of preforming a right
It does.

>restrictions as to their use
Whose use?

>"The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive
>>>>drive
stopped reading there. Words anons. This wouldn't hold up in SCOTUS.

>and to reasonable regulation under law.
>reasonable regulation under law.
>REASONABLE
I have to be proven dangerous stupid.

>>17095477
This is the exact same post from the last thread, and the IP count in this thread did not increase at all. Stop samefagging and neck yourself.

>>17095478
Does being dangerousily autistic count?

>>17095477
bretty much. Take with the information as you want.

Just feel like having a thread on it to see how far the arguments can go.

>>17095478
>>17095373
What does this have to do with the Articles of Confederation?

glad I live in a country that doesn't have laws as retarded as the USA.

>>17095503
He needs to include them, so he can play word games.

>>17095503
my post was meant for >>17095433

>>17095368
I love it when people do this without realizing that the AoC haven't been the law of the land in over 200 years

The amount of butthurt this guy is generating is golden.

>>17095515
>word games
Not really playing "word games" just being legally accurate, in the legal sense every almost word has a definition. You can look these up yourself. If you ever use the words motor vehicle, drive, driver, driving, you are using words that indicate you are operating commercially.

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.

>>17095636
Huh. Good thread op.

"The Motor Vehicle Act is not unconstitutional as making an arbitrary and unwarranted classification, in that it requires professional chauffeurs, or drivers of motor vehicles for hire, to pay an annual license, but exempts all others operators of such vehicles from tax and regulation." - [In the Matter of Application of Stork (1914), 167 Cal, 294,295]

"... (The Motor Vehicle Act classifies) drivers of automobiles into two classes, one professional chauffeurs, and requiring them to obtain a license, and pay an annual license fee of $2.00, the other embracing all others, who are not required to secure a license or pay license fee, is sound classification, and not arbitrary, so as to constitute special legislation." - Ex Parte Stork, 167 Cal 294. The Supreme Court of California Feb 24, 1914 - footnote inparamateria. Further confirmed in Beamon v. DMV (1960), 180. App.2d 200,4 Cal. Rpter396.

"A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family." Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 S.D. NY 1884).


"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).

>>17095276
This topic is fucking stupid

Now in order to further separate them, we find that during some probate hearings deciding on what goods to classify as personal and what goods to classify as business goods, we find that what use they are put to is a deciding factor.


"The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics,
determine whether it should be classified as ``consumer goods'' under UCC 9-109(1) or ``equipment'' under UCC 9-109(2)." Grimes v Massey Ferguson,
Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).

"Under UCC 9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for
personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually
exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be
considered as determinative." James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv
1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).

"The classification of goods in UCC 9-109 are mutually exclusive." McFadden
v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273
A.2d 198 (1971).

"The classification of ``goods'' under [UCC] 9-109 is a question of fact."
Morgan County Feeders, Inc. v McCormick, 18 UCC Rep Serv 2d 632; 836 P.2d
1051 (Colo. App., 1992).

"The definition of ``goods'' includes an automobile." Henson v Government
Employees Finance & Industrial Loan Corp., 15 UCC Rep Serv 1137; 257 Ark 273,
516 S.W.2d 1 (1974).
Household goods

"The term ``household goods'' ... includes everything about the house that is
usually held and enjoyed therewith and that tends to the comfort and
accommodation of the household. Lawwill v. Lawwill, 515 P.2d 900, 903, 21
Ariz.App. 75" 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part
94. Cites Mitchell's Will below.

"Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his
place of
employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat v
Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn.
App., 1966).

"The provisions of UCC 2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of
consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or used, that
are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use)." Maryland
Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle
Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978).

"An automobile was part of testatrix' ``household goods'' within codicil. In
re Mitchell's Will, 38 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674, 675 [1942]." 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) 512. Cites Arthur v Morgan, supra.

"[T]he expression ``personal effects'' clearly includes an automobile[.]" In
re Burnside's Will, 59 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (1945). Cites Hillhouse, Arthur,
and Mitchell's Will, supra.

"[A] yacht and six automobiles were ``personal belongings'' and ``household
effects[.]''" In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782 (1955).

“A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a “consumer goods”, ...it is
NOT a REQUIRED to be REGISTERED under this code
“Passenger vehicles which are not used for the
transportation of persons for hire, compensation o
profit, and housecars, are not commercial vehicles”
“a vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.”
and;
Not the type of vehicle required to be registered and “use tax” paid of which the tag is evidence of receipt of the tax.” Bank of Boston vs Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14. And;

“It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based
upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional
discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used
the owner in his own business, and not for hire.” Desser v. Wichita, (1915) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22.

“Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled.” Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20. And;

“In view of this rule a statutory provision that the supervising officials “may”
exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis
means that they “must” exempt them.” State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 6
C.J.S. section 94 page 581.

>>17095972
>“A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a “consumer goods”, ...it is
>NOT a REQUIRED to be REGISTERED under this code
Well shit.
At least im qualified to deliver pizzas.

>>17095495
Where did anon touch you?

Friendly reminder that "travelling" in an unregistered "automobile" while not having a license to do so... is illegal

Stay btfo op

Wtf
What happens when you break a speed limit? Did you travel over the speed limit as oppose to driving over the speed limit?

What if a driver and a traveler have an accident?

>>17096150
Citation needed. :^)

What "law" mandates, federally, that my right to travel by automobile vehicles is able to be compromised without fair reasoning by the city

>>17096160
You break the speed limit you can be subjected to fines,jail, or fight it in court.

Insurance;
Not quite sure if theres ever been a case on, it to my knowledge, but I'd assume You negotiate with the driver, and if the driver feels like you didn't compensate fairly,he can take you to court for the rest.

>>17096150
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;

>>17096248
http://www.snopes.com/supreme-court-rules-drivers-licenses-unnecessary/

>>17096265
Well, if YOU dont like him then i know for a fact autistic lawyer OP is /o/urguy.

>>17096287
First of all.

>SNOPES

Second of all
> but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
wew lad, right there. They can not stop you without reason.

"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"
>drive

God damnit how many times do you shith/o/les need to be reminded of your definitions.

>>17096172
it's state law not federal law.

>>17096325
Federal overrides state if the state law violates a constitutional right. Such as freedom to travel.

>>17095276
>/o/ now has le sovereign citizen fedoralords posting here

Aight, guess it's time for me to leave this shithole forever. It's actually sunk this low.

>>17096313
http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-tickets/driving-without-a-license.html

>>17096339
Lmao go get fucked and cry that your bootlicker army got consistently blown the FUCK out.

>>17096350
Anon, has you been sleeping? Driving is, in legal terms,commericial. Traveling is private.

Driving, drive, driver= commercial use/r of a automobile

Travel, traveling, traveler = private use/r of automobile

>>17096337
driving a car illegally isn't the same as travelling legally

driving is not a right or you wouldn't need to be licensed to do it. you aren't above the law.

>>17096362
DRIVING is a privileged. TRAVELING is a right.

>>17096352
Only one getting Continuously btfo is you, then you keep coming back with your bullshit "definitions"

Theres only one way for you to actually prove if you are right or not, and that's take your mommy's car out onto the highway :^)

File: 1493249331926.jpg (22KB, 307x462px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 307x462px

>>17096361

>>17096361
Nope
Try again

>bbbut this case from over a century ago suggests they have different meanings!!!
Irrelevant

File: (you).jpg (22KB, 400x299px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x299px

>>17096366
so travel by bus or use your legs you stupid fat cunt

>>17095513
>glad i dont have a document saying that my government must treat me with basic human rights

>>17095513
they aren't as retarded as the retards in this thread are making them out to be.

>>17096366
>Any person desiring to secure such permit shall apply in person therefor to the chief of police, who shall cause such applicant to be carefully examined as to his or her ability to safely and properly operate motor vehicles upon the streets of the city, and as to his or her knowledge of the traffic laws of the State of Virginia and city of Lynchburg. And no permit shall be issued to such person unless such examination shall disclose that he or she possesses such ability and knowledge as, in the judgment of the chief of police, qualifies such person to receive such permit. And in no event shall any such permit be issued to any person under the age of sixteen years. * * *

Nothing said about drivijg or travelling
Just operating a motor vehicle

File: 4758050679_9132e4255f_z.jpg (299KB, 579x579px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 579x579px

>>17095276
DO YOU have ANY idea HOW FAST you were going ?
>plead the 5th

name and registration plz
I can SMELL the weed
I'm going to have to search your car
>plead the 4th

Git out of da caurr
>AM I BEING DETAINED

I now require you tank an evidential blood test
>plead the 8th

>tfw non of this would work irl

>>17096362
>>17096366
And nothing about this is above the law. Its the opposite. It deep intimate knowledge of it.

"... (The Motor Vehicle Act classifies) drivers of automobiles into two classes, one professional chauffeurs, and requiring them to obtain a license, and pay an annual license fee of $2.00, the other embracing all others, who are not required to secure a license or pay license fee, is sound classification, and not arbitrary, so as to constitute special legislation." - Ex Parte Stork, 167 Cal 294. The Supreme Court of California Feb 24, 1914 - footnote inparamateria. Further confirmed in Beamon v. DMV (1960), 180. App.2d 200,4 Cal. Rpter396.

>>17095636

>>17096377
see post linked above.

>>17096373
Bullshit definitions? You're the one absolutely ignorant. I am citing literal legal documents regarding definitions of words that lawyers use and court cases you mong. The age of a legal document doesn't matter unless there is a SPECIFIC FEDERAL COURT CASE removing it!

>>17096392
>Just operating a motor vehicle
Holy shit anon. A motor vehicle is a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE.

>>17096380
Prove they are meaningless. :^)
>inb4 documents/cases referring motor vehicle drivers

>>17096430
>haha you better FEAR defending those rights in court boy!

>>17096406
in what way do you operate your personal private vehicle to make it move? you ... drive it? yep

case closed everyone!

>>17096430
>he says while wishing he owned a literbike, or a gun, while being tried for the third time for the same crime, or gets fined for denying the holocaust, etc, etc

>>17096437
No,you operate it. Stupid.

>>17096412
Motor vehicle and automobile are interchanged throughout that case with no mention of them having separate definitions

The case I am quoting, which was the case you losers were quoting all last thread until I dug up more than the first fucking paragraph and btfo you all out, explicitly states that anyone who wishes to use an automobile on public roads need a permit from the city to do so
End of story.

>>17096444
Trip of truth people

>>17096444
So if you are operating a motor vehicle rather than driving it, it is not being used for commercial purposes???

>>17096446
Drive and driving is still being implied thus this impled the judge is using the term automobile in the sense it is a commercial vehicle.

All motor vehicles are automobiles
NOT ALL AUTOMOBILES ARE MOTOR VEHICLES.

>>17096452
You are the operator of a traveling automobile.

In hypothetical court, it is wise to avoid the words relating to "drive" and "motor vehicle" and correct people who try to say you did.

>>17096452
>>17096460
And reminder from our last thread.

If your car is registered, it is ILLEGAL to operate it without a license.

Only unregistered cars may be operated without one.

>>17096455
>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;

Yeah... driving a private automobile is totally a commercial thing

>>17096455
>All motor vehicles are automobiles
>NOT ALL AUTOMOBILES ARE MOTOR VEHICLES.


>>17096479
>driving
No anon, you would be operating, or traveling in a private automobile.

>>17096483
>clinging to your made up definitions this hard
So if I operate a motor vehicle I am a private user?
If I drive an automobile I am a private user?

>>17096463
i dont know or care which particular irrelevant shithole you post from, but let me assure you my rights are far more protected than yours. enjoy getting eternally buttfucked by your state, you dumb anime posting namefag.

>>17096489
>made up
"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


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

>>17096500
>connote
Merely a suggestion, not a set definition

So *anything* an automobile means it is private use? So driving an automobile is private use?

>>17096506
the fact that i can own a peashooter without a government finger up my shithole makes my rights more real than yours, all on its own

>>17096489
And to answer you question, if i am correct in assuming your private automobile is the legally correct term and is unregistered then yes. You are a private Travelers according to law and SCOTUS/various other courts throughout our history and rightfully allowed to drive on public highways streets as long as you are not endangering anyone's or your own safety or other reasonable causes to remove you from the road.

However this thread is more for education as doing this would put you through a hell of a court battle.

>>17096511
connoted; connoting

transitive verb

1
: to be associated with or inseparable from as a consequence or concomitant the remorse so often connoted by guilt

2
a : to convey in addition to exact explicit meaning all the misery that poverty connotes For her, the word “family” connotes love and comfort.b : to imply as a logical connotation

>>17096542
>I dont need a permit to own a peashooter either you dumb sperg
but you are on a list and have to go through background checks, dont you?

>>17096536
Try again,

>imply or suggest (an idea or feeling) in addition to the literal or primary meaning
So it's not the literal or primary meaning

I drive an automobile, I am a private user
Deal with kt

>>17096563
what country?

>>17096611
thats what i thought, cuck.

>>17096640
>europoor screeching intensifies
how does it feel to know that i own more guns and ammo than most europeans are allowed to buy in a lifetime? hell, ive got 50 lbs of perfectly legal inert explosives left over from a party.

>>17096692
>I already told you I am not an europoor
you actually didnt, you mong

>t-theyll just take them
>i-itll happen. j-just watch
loving every laugh

This is fucking autistic as hell.

>>17096742
unless youve got ~150 million of those articles, they dont really mean anything. police and local governments overstep their bounds. hire a lawyer and get your shit back, or at least its worth. problem solved.

>>17096770
>implying an american citizens go to gitmo
how does an actual retard operate a keyboard? do you dictate your posts to someone?

>>17096826
>not an actual american citizen being held at gitmo
>just the president saying he doesnt care if known terrorists are tried at gitmo
do you actually read this shit before you post it?

>>17096848
Hes a shill. Hence the lack of arguments an intense shitposting so he can bump the thread out of existence to hide his shame.

>>17096506
>avatarfagging

These niggas getting btfo by one autist posting SC cases and shills are backed into a corner of pretending they arent valid... Do you guys know what a precedent is?

Precedents can not be overturned unless deemed valid if used in court

>>17097034
Lmao, the Cases he posts are bullshit
Last thread he keep kept spamming quotes from one, I looked it up and read past the first paragraph, and saw the judge explicitly stating that someone operating an automobile requires a permit to use public roads

Also don't talk about yourself in 3rd person faggot

>>17097055
>SCOTUS cases
>bullshit and invalid as Precedents
Prove it.Any quote from any case no matter the context can be used in the court as a precedent.

This is how our laws are structured and validated. Nothing posted was bullshit, it is all viable in court of law to be used in your defense. They must be able to overturn it once it is used, then that SC case can be referenced as a precedent as well. you are just completely ignorant and have no proof.

>>17097180
*in the future as that precedent

>>17097055
>I looked up my ass and it said BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP
Kek, tell me more

>>17097180
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.

"(b) Any person desiring to secure such permit shall apply in person therefor to the chief of police, who shall cause such applicant to be carefully examined as to his or her ability to safely and properly operate motor vehicles upon the streets of the city, and as to his or her knowledge of the traffic laws of the State of Virginia and city of Lynchburg. And no permit shall be issued to such person unless such examination shall disclose that he or she possesses such ability and knowledge as, in the judgment of the chief of police, qualifies such person to receive such permit. And in no event shall any such permit be issued to any person under the age of sixteen years. * * *

This is from the case the faggot anarchist edgy loser OP was quoting a dozen times in the last thread
Stay btfo

>>17097233
That has nothing to do with traveling. That's securing a permit.

It says right here

>Any person desiring to secure such permit

You don't need one to travel. Period. Mind your words.

>>17097233
>operate any motor vehicle
Mind your words. My household article is an automobile. I do not drive commercially.

I imagine this is OP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCsBi72xk38

File: 1492652065309.jpg (53KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 480x360px

ARE YOU FOND OF
MY AUTOMOBILE

>>17097238
Yeah of course you don't need a permit to walk

>muh motor vehicle muh automobile
Thomson in that case had a car for private use only

>>17097320
GONNA OPERATE MY CARRR

>>17097322
Read the threads stupid. Travel applies to automobiles as a valid means of it.

>All laws are "contracts"
>"I did not agree to that contract I have committed no crimes"
>"AM I BEING DETAINED"

>>17097322
>Thomson in that case had a car for private use only
He admitted it was a motor vehicle if this was the argument in court

>safely and properly operate motor vehicles
mind your words, sweety.

>>17097335
GONNA TRAVEL ALONG TILL I GET YOU

>all these shills and shitheads not minding their words

UM SWEETIE.
Im NOT a motorist. I am a travlist please keep the dialect legal ok??

>>17097345
Ruling was in regards to all uses including private

Keep trying with your made up definitions though

>>17097392
private motor vehicles

I'm not delivering pizzas, I don't need a motor vehicle, honey. I'm sorry.

>>17097392
Private users are subjected to reasonable penalties, not forced license to operate one at all on public roads. If they drove drunk, or drove in other reckless ways, or on parole, the city can deem them un unfit. He can then eat the charges or fight in court.

>>17097399
Also this

>PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLES

Remember anons.
All motorvehicles are automobiles
Not all automobiles are motorvehicles.

>>17097392
Lmao how does it feel to be btfo by such soverign travelers cuck

File: hehehe.jpg (134KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 500x333px

>>17097335
>>17097347
>>17097320

>>17097347
CUZ IM SOVERIGN NOT A DRIVER

>>17097467
BUT SHILLS HATE IT

I WANNA TRAVEL FOR YOUUUUUUU, shall I go now?

https://definitions.uslegal.com/v/vehicle/
>Tex . Health & Safety Code § 386.101 defines motor vehicle as follows:

“***

(3) "Motor vehicle" means a self-propelled device designed for transporting persons or property on a public highway that is required to be registered under Chapter 502, Transportation Code.


Lmao, no license underage cuckolds btfo beyond recovery
Keep misquoting century old cases though, it totallt makes up for you literally not being able to drive

>>17097489
And chapter 502 of the transportation code clearly separates "commercial motor vehicles" from all other types of moor vehicles

>>17097489
>>17097495
>motor vehicle

Holy shit you dum dum. READ THE THREADS.

>>17097489
>bus drivers and pizzaboys
that's why I don't own a motor vehicle honey. I'm not a wageslave cuck like you.

I travel in an automobile.

>>17097517
Read what? Some autist making up definitions?

I'll side with the texas transportation code, thanks

>>17097522
>made up definitions

Here we go again. Now you are pretending these deffinitions dont exist. Read above posts in the thread. There is plenty of proof proving you otherwise.

>>17097522
"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


"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

>>17097560
>Now you are pretending these deffinitions dont exist
Yeah... they dont though

>>17097570
'definitions' from two entirely different cases

texas state transportation code says
>(25) "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is self-propelled.
not exclusive to passenger cars or commercial vehicles. mtor vehicle is indeed a different and border term because it encompasses almost everything

>>17095430
Make sure to point out the fringe on the flag too as a get-out-of-jail-free card

>>17096391
Only the sovereign citizen/freeman on the land dipshits, and they aren't unique to the US. We have them in Canada and I know the UK does too.
Personally I like watching them try to use their super special freeman language and get BTFO every time, bonus points for when they get themselves tasered.

>>17095430
That's an important one. Never claim to be someone's legal personality, you'll be subject to international bank laws.

>>17097596
>'definitions' from two entirely different cases
because they are two things, sweetie... oh honey. you're not very good at this.

Sovereigns are always hilarious honestly. I'm sure OP has a video on YT somewhere of him trying this shit and getting arrested. Like any delusional sovereign, he probably proclaimed it to be a victory over the system despite being arrested and fined while nobody in the police or courts gives a shit.

>>17097642
>American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200
>"Motor vehicle," more often used as a generic term, has a somewhat broader meaning, and is commonly applied to any form of self-propelled vehicle suitable for use on a street or roadway
>"motor vehicle" as "any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively upon stationary tracks, except tractors." (XVI).

by the way that case is about a fucking tractor being driven on private property.

so where exactly are these definitions that a 'motor vehicle' is strictly a commercial vehicle?
and where is the proof that someone can operate a motor vehicle on public roads without a license?

lmao dumb fuck edgy losers dont even know what the fuck they are citing

>>17097664
>relative to municipal permits
From your source. I win again.

>>17097664
You don't operate a motor vehicle on the road. You operate your unregistered automobile.

Fact is the state can never stop you from traveling wherever you please with your personal affects.

Go register for a license if you want to be a pizzaboy deliver uber driver cuck.

I'll travel on, cowboys.

>>17097696
They can't stop you traveling, no. Traveling means lots of things.

But they can stop an unregistered motor vehicle from operating on public roads :^)

>>17097738
I'll never drive a motor vehicle.

>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

supreme court, buddy.

>not a mere privilege which may be permitted
I literally do not have to get a permit.

Written in plain english. It's my right to not have traveling by automobile reduced to a "privilege"

What's happening in America is everyone has been scammed into getting a commercial driving license when they don't need one.

Travel on, my friends. In your automobile.

>>17097819
>Any person desiring to secure such permit shall apply in person therefor to the chief of police, who shall cause such applicant to be carefully examined as to his or her ability to safely and properly operate motor vehicles upon the streets of the city, and as to his or her knowledge of the traffic laws of the State of Virginia and city of Lynchburg. And no permit shall be issued to such person unless such examination shall disclose that he or she possesses such ability and knowledge as, in the judgment of the chief of police, qualifies such person to receive such permit. And in no event shall any such permit be issued to any person under the age of sixteen years. * * *

This was ruled at a later date than the shit you are quoting
Its not 1900s anymore
Keep trying:^)

>inb4 "huur motor vehicle is a commercial vehicle and not a personal one"
I already proved that claim incorrect with your own fucking citation

>>17097933
>and properly operate motor vehicles
>claim you prove us wrong
>and properly operate motor vehicles

You can own a private motor vehicle. Someone just literally don't know how strict words and definitionas are in your, especially one backed up not only by SC but legal bookings lawyers use to learn our laws.

I make up nothing, you still FAILED to show me where private AUTOMOBILES are included in such a ruling. And nothing about your sad life has changed other than you need to reevaluate you life and understanding of american law, assuming you are even an american you don't seem to be with you absolute lack of understanding of our legal systems in place including the definitions we have legally settled.

Your entire argument is ruined when you bring up definitions, what our court has recognized such words in past cases, no matter the age(you need more than "its old" to make a previous ruling over ruled) or case, as long as the context is clear.

>>17097825
>the bootlicker completely bltfo by lawyer talk desperately trying to lie to us about it

Anon is ecposed how shilled /o/ is. Alphonse is cnfirmed shill bootlicker. I recognize those obama images anywhere despite him trying to post anon.

File: 1466951681057.png (127KB, 637x592px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 637x592px

>>17097933
>BUT NO REE DEFINITIONS DONT REAL I CAN STILL WIN WITH DENIAL
>what is Title 18 USC 31
Here you go,not even SC, just don't you have to fucking deal with as a fact.

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

stay btfo "anon"

>>17098046
*just something you have to fucking deal with as a fact because its solidify in more than one way in American law, not that you know or care for your argument.

Wow sovereign citizens are autistic.

Ancap memes don't work if everyone else around you is part of a government.

>>17098076
>lose arguments
>WOW LOOK AT THIS AUTIST KNOWING LAWS BETTER THAN ME

>>17098024
Hes not him. Hes shitpost guy and the miata shiller. Anons thread is smoking shills out and its glorious

>>17095329
"No, you are being detained on suspicion of plotting a terrorist act under the 2006 as emended PATRIOT Act. You do not have the right to remain silent you do not have the right to an attorney, you do not have the right to knowledge of the allegations against you. Do you understand your rights as laid out to you?"

>>17098096
Where in the patriot act is this listed againdt a united states citizen?

They have cause to get your identification, your phone records, ect ect but your right to a layer and to remain silent as well as your rights are still respected, protected and can not be revoked without due process.

>>17098096
>>17098464
You never had the right to remain silent. However you are not breaking the law operating a private automobiles on public streets. Being a suspect of terrorism is a different thing entirely because that implied youre being pulled in for questioning to prevent a crime

>>17095344
Please don't be serious.
Did it get canceled?

>>17097819
Your car doesn't have a motor?

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

9KB, 292x173px

>>17095276
Daily reminder that political discussion belongs in /pol/

>>17096463
>God's chosen people
Where was this god of yours when these despicable acts happened?

Where was he? Oh, that's right, he's a mythical creature similar to a fucking unicorn.

>>17098938
You didnt read the thread? My car has a combustion engine and is a provate automobile NOT. Motorvehicle.
Acording to Title 18 USC 3, a motor vehicle is a commercial vehocle. There are privately owned motor vehicles(registered at the DMN) but they are still a commercial motor vehicles that require a license to drive. An automobile is unregistered and has the same right as a horse drawn wagon.

>>17099418
I was obviously bating anti-semitic polyps you idiot

>>17099749
So your engine isn't a motor or your car isn't a vehicle?

>>17099749
*a privately owned automobile reffered to as household affect

>>17099765
Please read Title 18 USC 31 and recite to us what motorvehicle is defined as.

>>17099765
Anon. Youre retarded or baiting. All motorvehicles are automobiles. Not all automobiles are motorvehicles.

>>17099776
>>17099786

>Motor vehicle
Implying a vehicle propelled by a motor.
Do you drive a Flintstone car?

>>17099811
Recite it anon. Do it. And then look up what automobile means in court. Whew

I do not drive a motor vehicle i operate an automobile.

>>17099811
BAKA your tircks wont work here mr laywerstien!

>>17099815
Then who drives your vehicle, and how is it propelled?
Do you ask your driver to get behind other cars with a magnet?

>>17099815
>>17099820
Using two posts to reply to another post doesn't fool people into thinking there's more than one of you.

>>17095276
If you're this good at finding loopholes in laws, why aren't you a lawyer?

>>17099825
It is self propelled as in I, myself propel it.

>>17099895
Because i can not give legal advice to my fellow state citizens without them hiring me first and i have a moral agenda thats sickening. i genuinely want people to know and understand their rights not extort them to do work they could have done themselves on a computer at home.

>>17099811
>motor vehicles
>"(6)Motor vehicle.—
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo."

>The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes
>and used for commercial purposes

A private automobile is used for personal affairs only. Its is NOT commercial like motor vehicle is. You are being silly at this point.

>>17100230
>>17099895
Also i do NOT DRIVE. I operate a private automobile. It is propelled by me so i may travel freely on public roads

>>17100422
Meant for >>17099825

>>17100230
With your feet?
Do you get behind and push it?
How do you move it without a motor?
>>17100422
You have another person drive it while you operate the radio?

>>1710023>>17100535
You see, there is this thing called a peddle in an automobile. When i push it towards the floorboard while the engine is on it opens up cylinders to create explosions with this substance known as "gasoline". Then the engine is able to have power to propel forward. All with my own foot while I sit in the left side of the car in the seat. Buckled in of course! I am then self propelling my car, you see.

Any further questions, sir?

>>17100570
Is the engine not a motor?
Is the car not a vehicle?
pls explain

>>17100588
It is called a combustion engine.not a combustion motor.

A vehicle is anything with four wheels and a cab(acording to legal definitions) Wagons are vehocles, carriages are vehicles, automobiles are vehicles. Vehicle is not a commercial term Motor is.

>>17100616
*anything with four wheel, cab, and less than 10,000 pounds, mind you.

>>17100623
Also vehicles refer to ANY mode of transportation, that is technically the legal definition of AUTOMOBILE.

Vehicles are planes, wagons, buses, automobiles, motor mobiles, ect ect

>>17100636
*motor vehicle
Words anon :^)

File: Big meaty aircraft.jpg (86KB, 1024x571px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1024x571px

>>17100616
mo·tor
ˈmōdər/
noun
noun: motor; plural noun: motors

1.
a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for some other device with moving parts.
a source of power, energy, or motive force.
"hormones are the motor of the sexual functions"

adjective
adjective: motor

1.
giving, imparting, or producing motion or action.


>>17100623
Something over 10k pounds isn't a vehicle any more?
Either way, it sounds like a car is a vehicle.

>>17100646
See
>>17100636
Vehicle isn't indication of commercial, it is indication of travel. Motor is related to commercial.

A MOTOR vehicle is commercial.
A PRIVATE or HOUSE AFFECTS VEHICLE is private

You are also not using the definition recognized in court of law in america, invalid. See Title 18 USC 31 for correct definition in court for motor vehicle.

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

>>17100673
>Motor is related to commercial
Motor is related to the source of the mechanical energy which is used to apply torque to the wheels which moves the vehicle.
Is a car not a vehicle with a motor?

>>17100693
Finish this sentence. Combustion _____

>>17100724
Reaction

>>17100731
Cute.

Combustion engine. There is no such thing as a combustion motor,.

ICE. Internal combustion engine. There is no such thing as an ICU.

>>17100739
Are you saying an engine is not a motor?
My local hospital has an ICU, just letting you know.

>>17100739
*ICM

>>17100746
Are you saying its called an "internal combustion motor" or "IBM"?

No such thing exists. Please point it out.

File: ibm.jpg (366KB, 2435x1164px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 2435x1164px

>>17100758
>No such thing exists
What's this then?
Are you saying an engine is not a motor?
Are you saying an engine does not fall under the definition of a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for some other device with moving parts.
a source of power, energy, or motive force?
Are you implying that combustion is spelled with a B?

>>17100785
A computer company? :^) Not related to engines.Thanks for the bumps though, I'll be awake for making Part 3 I see.

An engine has a motor as parts within in, but as a new invention is is deemed an engine not a motor.

Certainly an automobile is a machine. But not a motor. Its an engine.

>>17100831
The source of power/force/energy in a combustion ENGINE is COMBUSTION. NOT MOTORS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine

>>17100831
So if a car has an engine, an engine has a motor within it, and a car is a vehicle, isn't the car a motor vehicle?

>>17100862
If it is register with the DMV(hence the M) it is a motor vehicle.

If it is unregistered it is a personal, or, house assets, automobile

>>17100879
The DMV adds a motor to your car?
How does it move if motors only come from registration?

>>17100882
Yes. Did you ever read your contract when you got your license? You were signing up to be a commercial driver. Recognized as a Motorist, aka driver(though driver had been shown to apply casually in court cases as well concerning automobiles) in the law. Your car officially becomes known as a Motor Vehicle, or commercial automobile, or automobile for hire. It is illegal to drive a register motor vehicle without a license.

If you don't do this with you or your car you are a Traveler in a private automobile. It is not illegal to drive on public highways streets as a traveler in an automobile.

It has nothing to do with the engine, or the motor, it is legal definitions that bind you and basically seen as a drive in the eyes of the court.

Theses are backed by SC cases. Read the threads.

>>17100930
Shit, I didn't see them open the hood. If I knew that they comped me a motor, I would have asked for something better than the 2.4L NA option. I was only inside the office for five minutes too, and I didn't even see their mechanic.

>>17100930
Basically. It the difference between a car with out without stickers and plates.

The drivers license was funded off of theft prevention and regulation to peoples who use automobiles for direct money like a taxi driver, not regulation on private automobiles.

File: No motors here.jpg (72KB, 1154x649px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1154x649px

Automobilecycle

>>17100979
The point still stands, he's not talking about motors anyways he's talking about motor vehicles.

>>17101009
He's implying vehicles propelled by motors aren't motor vehicles.

>>17101021
You're just derailing because you lost the moment he brought up the legal definition for motor vehicles.

File: 1491350886466.jpg (47KB, 480x467px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 480x467px

OP

When you get pulled over I wish you the best of luck. I really do, especially because you'll need it.

You and I both know the arresting officer won't know the law nor does he care. In fact, he doesn't have to know the law.
>I've gone to jail over a legal firearm
>Officer dickwad was under the impression ANY modified firearm was illegal
>My shotgun was sawn off 1/16" over the legal limit, for my protection
>Upon trying to show the officer the .gov website and what it stated he told me it's illegal, read me my rights, and threw my in the back seat
>Was released within hours, received numerous apologies, and they paid to have my vehicle recovered from a private towing company, ride to it included

I wish our cops were held to a higher standard, but they're not. The moment you start telling them you're a traveling citizen, you'll take his job and sue the county, you're going to jail.

You'll have a hell of a time proving your point. Best of luck to you,
>AM I BEING DETAINED

>>17101035
You're not proving anything to the cops. You're proving you're innocence to a judge with a case with your attorney.

File: kotblini face.jpg (91KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 640x426px

>>17101032
>Vehicle containing a motor
>That motor is used for propelling the vehicle
>Somehow not a motor vehicle

>>17101050
There you go derailing again. Tell me the legal(as in highest order of definitions in American court systems) definition of motor vehicle again? I forgot.

File: cwc.jpg (9KB, 170x279px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 170x279px

>>17101068
>A vehicle propelled by a motor
>Anything but a motor vehicle

>>17097991
Here, this is quoted from a case you faggots were citing like crazy

Or doesn't it count anymore because I decided to read past the first paragraph and saw you are all fucking illiterate shit stains?

>American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200
>"Motor vehicle," more often used as a generic term, has a somewhat broader meaning, and is commonly applied to any form of self-propelled vehicle suitable for use on a street or roadway
>"motor vehicle" as "any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively upon stationary tracks, except tractors." (XVI).

by the way that case is about a fucking tractor being driven on private property.

so where exactly are these definitions that a 'motor vehicle' is strictly a commercial vehicle?
and where is the proof that someone can operate a motor vehicle on public roads without a license?

lmao dumb fuck edgy losers dont even know what the fuck they are citing

>>17101083
"(6)Motor vehicle.—
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo."

>and used for commercial purposes
Note the "AND" stupid.

>>17101106
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/31

File: 1478020408437.png (439KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 400x400px

>>17101106
>has a somewhat broader meaning
>somewhat broader meaning
>and is commonly applied to any form of self-propelled vehicle suitable for use on a street or roadway

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

Done with you in one fell swoop, I see. Next.

File: 680974543_small.jpg (17KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x300px

/O/ IS BACK BABY
MAXIMUM OVERTRAVEL


I AM A SOVERIN TRAVELING AUTOMILIST AN I SHALL PROTECT MY CASE IN THE COURT OF LAW

But seriously thanks for this legal advice op. Its good information even if not practiced. Never knew right travel applied to automobiles(and that the courts could see a difference between private travelers and their cars and drivers and their "motorvehicle" until your threads

>>17101106
Not only is he right and cited valid sources consistently every time you tried to argue with him and in previous posts, you think the age of a case matters when these cases are the foundation for our laws. Precedents. Such ignorant and obnoxious niggers you are.

>>17101434
I'm quoting a case you cited for "proof" of your definitions

A motor vehicle is defined by that judge as any self propelled vehicle, used for private OR commercial purposes
And it was at a later date than the shit you are quoting now. So it's relevant and cancels out your precedent

>>17101106
Where is the proof

>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

Is invalidated by your "trump card"?

>>17101950
Hmm.. Convenient.

Is is not proof that paragraph is invalidated. Merely a judge was more lenient with that word in this particular case.

An automobile can be either consumer or commercial vehicle.

“Passenger vehicles which are not used for the
transportation of persons for hire, compensation o
profit, and housecars, are not commercial vehicles” - 236 A2d 484


“It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based
upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional
discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used
the owner in his own business, and not for hire.”

“Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled.” Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20.

“In view of this rule a statutory provision that the supervising officials “may”
exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis
means that they “must” exempt them.” State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 6
C.J.S. section 94 page 581.

>inbe BUT THEY ARE OLD WAAAH
Does. Not Matter. Show me where they had been overturned in another case if its true.

>>17101549
see
>>17102529
That does not change the absolute fact you have a right to operate a consumer(unregistered, private) automobile/motor vehicle without a license.

>>17102540
See https://casetext.com/case/thompson-v-smith-24 (a case you've been quoting for two threads)

Its is explicitly stated that an individual needs a permit to operate their motor vehicle (motor vehicle IS NOT exclusive to commercial vehicles, it's a broad and all encompassing term, I've already disproven that retarded claim with your own sources) on public roads

Now let the damage control flow

>>17102633
and that the chief of police be compelled to restore to him his permit to

The case is distinctly about a licensed driver. They are not allowed to drive private automobiles. No law dictates an unlicensed persons may not travel in their private personal(unregistered) automobiles on public highway streets.

Nice try though.

>>17102797
Full paragraph as proof it in indicated towards licensed individuals, not unlicensed ones.

W. L. Thompson appeals from a decree entered on March 15, 1929, by the Corporation Court of the city of Lynchburg dismissing upon demurrer a bill in chancery filed by him against D. C. Smith, chief of police of said city, in which he prays that said chief of police be enjoined from interfering with his operation of his private passenger automobile on the streets of Lynchburg, and that the chief of police be compelled to restore to him his permit to operate a private automobile on said streets, which permit it is alleged the chief of police has revoked, acting under the italicized provision of sub-section "c" of section 134 of the general ordinances of the city of Lynchburg below quoted.

>which permit it is alleged the chief of police has revoked

>>17102797

>They are not allowed to drive private automobiles.
Not sure, but they are subjected to getting their permit revoked by COP if they drive one.

>>17102797
It was about the cop revoking his permit after only two offences instead of the required three offences
The license was used for personal use in Thompsons personal motor vehicle, had nothing to do with commercial use AT ALL

There is no law saying you can't? Then take your unlicensed ass and plop it in an unregistered automobile and see if your "freedom of movement" isn't "violated" by every single officer you drive past
To make it even more fun, make sure your unregistered automobile is an r34 gtr or some other newer than 25 year old import...
Have fun!

>>17102808
Keep reading the case file numb nuts, it states that a city issued permit is needed for anyone (except visitors who are staying less than a week) wanting to use a motor vehicle on public roads, be it oersonal or commercial use, after testing to see if they know the road rules anf can control a vehicle, and not to be issued to anyone under the age of 16

Arguing this hard you can't even read the fucking shit Yoire posting
Just what you want to see and ignoring everything else
How embarrassing

>>17103916

Its a city ordinance that applies to citizens of a city and its unconstitutional for AS FUCK them to force people to get commercial license. And it can be factually prooven with SC cases. Just because a DRIVER(Someone who, IF ANY OF YOU READ YOUR DMV CONTRACT, YOU HAD AGREED TO FORFEIT THAT RIGHT TO TRAVEL BY ANY AUTOMOBILE IN CONTRACT)got ass raped because he was too stupid to realize he was fucked to moment he signed his dmv contract doesnt indicate it illegal for non licensed citizen to not get a licence and drive unregistered cars. And again, the court case is in regards to a DRIVER ATTEMPTING TO DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE. NOT AN UNLICENSED CITIZEN DEFENDING HIS RIGHT TO MOVE FREELY IN PERSONAL HOME ASSETS. It violates your right to use a private automobiles on public roads as private automobiles count as household affrcts. Point me to the SC case that only OLD cars apply to this deffinition you snake.

At this point youre the one in absolute full damage control. I set my conditions from the very first thread. Find me federal laws that say unlicensed individuals may not travel freely on publid roads. Youre basically trying to make me and others afraid of my own fucking court is indicator your a sad and so poor in the mind the though of a free individual (hence not a DRIVING INDIVIDUAL) using a public road wothout a license is so alien you think there is a law somewhere about it and people jave continued to fail again and again there od a law amd not unconstitutional city ordinance that could be fought off and when someone points to to a case about the right to travel its not even about an unlicensed driver which was, since my first thread, pointed out it wasnt illegal for in unlicensed persons to drive unregistered personal automobiles and you have, acording to court cases, a RIGHT TO TRAVEL YOUR PERSONAL VEHICLE NOT PRIVILEGE AND IT CAN NOT BE SOMETHING THE CITY CAN FORCE A PERMIT ON.

>>17103163
>op has made ot clear he refers to unlicensed individuals
>try to say a case relating to a commercial driver proved him wrong
>get btfo when this is pointed out
>"REE OH YEAH WELL JUST TRY TO DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS"

Fucking every time.

Drivers forfeit the right to travel by automobiles without commercial license and registration. Read your contracts.

Anons entire point is unlicensed people can fight in court on the ground automobiles are personal affects and have the right to move said affects without permit. The only time you can force a traveler to get a licence to operate one is if you proove him to be unfit as a safe driver. Of course you can SAY the individual was unfit, but they will have to prove it as long as you arent a cuck unaware of current federal aws and your constitutional rights and what is protected under them based on precedents.

>inb4 "OOGA BOOGA BE AFRAID OOOO COURT"
Wew lad. Nice arguments that totally dont rely on a form of fear mongering

>>17104612
*fail again and again to prove such a law exists and not unconstitutional city ordinance that would get wreked to moment a non commercial driver makes a case his personal affects can travel without permit and its based on PRECEDENTS against them.

Remember the original quote in question
>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

>>17102633
>(motor vehicle IS NOT exclusive to commercial vehicles
Only in this case because it was specified but the legal deffinitions used in past and present for motor vehicle still stands.I would love to see you pit this against the other cases that specify the difference between commercial and private drivers/cars though.

And i would LOVE for you to proove a city has the right to restrict the use of private automobiles for unlicensed travelers on public roads and this being based on precedents. It is already based on precedent that you dont need a permit to travel one privately and it is not something you can force onto a citizen as it violates their recognized constitutional rights. This could be battled in court and the anon has more evidence travel by automobiles(acording to SC cases) is a court recognized right than you do.

>sovereign autist losers literally this retarded
Cherry picking single Lines from different cases all from a century ago
Back pedalling and massive mental gymnastics when I use your own citations to discredit your claims

You cannot legally do what you faggots claim
Go and drive unlicensed in an unregistered car past a patrol car and see what happens
Go ahead and quote your single Lines from century old cases to a police officer
Go ahead and try take your stupid traffic court case all the way to the Supreme Court. It won't happen. You won't even do it because you know you'll get ass fucked

Retarded as all fuck

>>17104644
>The only time you can force a traveler to get a licence to operate one is if you proove him to be unfit as a safe driver.

Wow how convenient... REALLY MADE ME THINK.

Suck my dick in traffic court you fucking mongoloid

>>17104692
Texas transportation code defines a motor vehicle as any self propelled vehicle, commercial or private, that does not operate on fixed tracks :^)

>>17104644
The case I quoted was not related to a commercial driver
Try again

>>17103916
A permit for drivers to use automobiles at all. Where does it say traveling individuals apply? All automobiles apply, but not operators. Individuals referred to commercially licensed ones not travelers and if it did it is based on unconstitutional rulings NOT BASED ON PREVIOUS CASES AND RECOGNIZED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THUS CAN BE BTFO BY SCOTUS WHO HAVE ULTIMATE POWER CONCERNING THEM

>>17104720
It was. He had a permit that was revoked, that is made very fucking clear. You do not have a driving permit(license)if you are not a commercial driver.

>>17104710
Wow its almost like you cant revoke a RIGHT without reasonable processing!!

>>17104764
>traveling individuals

if you're sitting in the left front seat of a car with the steering wheel in your hands, pressing pedals that move the car forward or stop it

you are DRIVING

D R I V I N G

>>17104773
SHIT GUESS THAT MEANS I CAN SPEED WHEREVER. I'M NOT DRIVING I'M TRAVELING!!! I'M A RETARD!!!!!!!!!

>>17104714
And travelers have a right to use their private motor vehicles(or home asset automobile)on public roads

>>17104720

wrong. It was clearly stated a permit was revoked by the cops. This is a case about a COMMERCIAL DRIVER NOT PRIVATE TRAVELERS

>>17104776
You are onlu a commercial driver if you have a commercial drivers licence. Other wise you are a private traveler driving a private motorvehicle(both drive and motir vehicle are braod terms)

Driving an automobile does not mean you are a commercial driver.

>>17104776
>i have rights but for some reason because im so stupid and obnoxious im going to misinterpreted that to mean i can break the laws

There is no federal law preventing non commercial drivers to operate(or drive when ised in its casual meaning) private motorvehicles on public roads. You lost.

>>17104776
Yes, he is DRIVING bit that doesnt mean youre a DRIVER. Your car could be towed and youd be driving it as long as youre still behond the wheel. You are a Traveler driving. Not a Driver driving.

>>17104772
Show me where in the case file it says anything about Thompson being a commercial driver


Keep trying

>>17104785
Permit was revoked by police after two offences, when they could only do so after three offences
His permit was wrongfully taken from him and THAT was a violation of his freedom of movement
The case file clearly states Thompson was NOT A COMMERCIAL DRIVER and that city issued permits are needed for private use of automobile on public roadways.

>>17104776
Driver:
"One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,

>One employed in conducting
>EMPLOYED

Driving:
driv·ing (drī′vĭng)
adj.
1. Transmitting power or motion.

Driver and driving are two different words you idiot.

>>17104810
His permit was revoked but he still had an account at the DMV and was recognized as a driver with a revoked license aka being punished.

As long as youre registerd at the dmv you are a driver no matter if your license was suspended

>>17104795
>No federal law
But every state has a law that requires "travellers" to possess a valid license to operate their automobiles (and each state has laws that require automobiles to be registered for public road use) on public roads

You are pretty much saying that there is no federal law saying I have to keep my penis inside my pants while at a public library so that cancels out any state law that states I have to keep my penis inside my pants

>>17104815
That case file still explicitly states that anyone wishing to operate a motor vehicle, be it a commercial vehicle or personal vehicle, needs a city issued permit to do so

>>17104818
Yes, and they are unconstitutional and can be proven that an automobile is a private home asset and has the same rights as a horse. This is backed by court cases. They are in direct violation of a constitutional right and thus upbto question and trial. There have been court cases were a driver tried to have the right, but drivers have privileges not rights so they are btfo, but not regarding a traveler structuring his right to public road by operation of his private vehicles which automobiles fall inder.

However structure a case for a travelers rigjt to use his home asset free of permot amd he will very likely win as there are too many precedents to ignore regarding what an automobile as a private asset in in the eyes of the courts.

>>17104823
And again, that is unconstitutional and can be battled and they will lose because of the fact all private vehicles(Automobiles are recognized as a valid means of travel by private vehicles) have a constitutional RIGHT TO USE PUBLIC ROADS.

That is a city ordinance based on an unconstitutional position l. Otll get wreked with the right case.

>>17104830
Show me any case within the last half a century where your bullshit actually holds water and an unlicensed "traveler" successfully fought the charges

You literally can't

>>17104837
You show me the case travelers dont have the inherit right to operate their private motor vehicles on public roads. You have one unconstitutional ordinance that would get btfo because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Just admit you have no proof a traveler is prohibited federally to operate unregistered vehicles unlicensed but there is proof an automobile is a recognized mode of travel like a horse, and that they have a right to use said constitutional right to travel without permit. An UNCONSTITUTIONAL city ordinance that hasnt been challenged correctly is not representative of definite law that automobiles are not protected as a mode of private travle and that all travelers must obtain a licence to operate any automobiles.

>>17104849
Hes right you know.

That city passed something OBJECTIVELY un constitutional. That can easily get over ruled.

>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

>>17104703
They hold water even if they are old. Do you have any idea how precedents fucking work?

>>17104837
>lose arguments on objective basis
>WELL SHOW ME THE LAW THAT SAYS I MAY FART IN PUBLIC YOU CANT SO YOU CANT FART IN PUBLIC

lol 4 u

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; 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 purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.

The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
>but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.

>>17104837
THE VERY ONE YOU QUOTED

>The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.

>but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
>but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.

>>17104892
BOOTLICKER BTFO
>The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.

THE DRIVER IN THAT CASE HAD BEEN PROCESSED AS UNSAFE SEVERAL TIMES

File: 1472701556491.gif (3MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x500px

>>17104901
AHAHAHAHAHA

>show us a case about a DRIVER who had been legally processed and found guilty of unsafe driving
>court orders they have rights to revoke privileges from these people for safety
>but also directly says you may not unreasonably(without due process to the individual) prohibit it

File: tmp_4571-donald_dick_gif_by_funnydank-d52ntgy209728347.jpg (81KB, 567x461px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 567x461px

>>17104901
>>17104914
>The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.

but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
Glorious

File: 1477368010337.jpg (84KB, 567x600px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 567x600px

>>17104925
>that file name
>not using a more streamlined meme like pic
REEEEEEEEEE

>>17104927
DONT YOU FUCKING TELL ME I CANT PRIVATELY OPERATE MY MEMES ON A PUBLIC IMAGE BOARD

File: officer low FPS.jpg (486KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1920x1080px

>>17104930
SIR YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
ANY MEME YOU USE CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.

File: 1492355186876.gif (2MB, 400x309px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x309px

>>17104925
>but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it
HOLY FUCK THE FREEDOM

USA USA USA

Well that is pretty fucking undeniable. Good job. Court rules in favor of the autists. Case closed.

>>17104892
>>17104892
You must be illiterate

Arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit means preventing someone from gaining a permit because they are black or left handed or something similarity retarded
Then goes on to say one cannot be denied a permit while another identically qualified person is granted one.

Those paragraphs are for anti discrimination purposes. Seriously you are retarded

The case still explicitly states that an individual requires a city issued permit to operate a motor vehicle, be it a private vehicle or commercial vehicle, on the public roads


Still not seeing a single case in the last half a century where your bullshit argument holds water and charges were dropped against the unlicensed individual

>when retards try to cut up a court case into quotes and paragraphs to find a sentence that appeals to them but ignore that the very sentence after it says you, as a city, but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it and the very paragraph before it that says

"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; 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 purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will."

>>17104967
>calls me illiterate but cant read
>"It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will."
>It is not a mere privilege
>The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare;
>but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it
>doesn't know what ";" indicates

If i need to prove i qualify to operate a car it is being treated as a privilege not a right.

>>17104967
What does the "IT" refer to when one says "but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict IT", anon? "IT" refers to
"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; 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 purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will."

>>17104977
You are still illiterate
You are taking only what you want to take from it rather than what it actually fucking says

The city requires a permit but it may not Arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit people from gaining the permit. Be it for whatever reason (for example, you are a nigger so denied)

>>17104986
Damn. Bootlicker comfirmed to be a mad childish projecting illiterate

>>17104989
See
>>17104986
What does "IT" in the sentence "...but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict IT"

lmao you fucking imbecile. Do I need a permit to be driving my horse on a public highway/strreet?

>>17104986
No anon its a trap. Right to "DRIVE"

It is well established drive, driving, travelling and travel all have specific meanings in law.

This is a case about the right to DRIVE(SEE LEGAL DEFINITION BEFORE SHITPOSTING) not the right to TRAVEL ON PUBLIC HIHHWAYS.

T. Law student

>>17104999
Wrong. DRIVE is casual, it refers to the act of steering something. DRIVING is the same.

DRIVER is strict.
"One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,

>>17104992
What do you think unreasonably or arbitrarbly restrict or prevent means? I know what 'it' refers to, read my fucking post

Requiring a permit that proves you are competent enough to operate a motor vehicle (for lersonal or commercial use) on public roads is not an arbitrary or unreasonable restriction. It's more than reasonable.

Using their own sources, le sovereignty faggots are still btfo
This discussion has been going on for two days and it's irrelevant as fuck. I'm sick of wasting my time arguing with edgy loserz who dont even have the balls to practice what they preach. And are too ignorant to accept the fact that presenting le supreme freedumb arguments in a court would result in nothing but a bigger hit to their bank account. If they aren't fucked up for 'resisting arrest' (or shot for pulling a phone out to show wikipwdia quotes) after acting like an ass to a police officer...

>>17105004
Actually they have two meanings. A strict commercial one, and a casual one. Both ruled valid means of deffinition in our courts and neither had been over ruled and invalidated.


This case is about a DRIVER IN THE SINCE HE IS KNOWN AS A COMMERCIAL DRIVER WHETHER HIS PERMIT WAS REVOKED DOESNT MEAN HE IS NO LONGER LEGALLY SEEN AS A DRIVER AS HE CAN RENEW IT WITHOUT OPENING A NEW ACCOUNT AT THE DMV.

This is about your right to DRIVE(COMMERCIAL LEGAL DEF) As commercial DRIVER IN AN UNREGISTERED NON COMMERCIAL MOTORVEHICLES.

It has nothing to do with non commercial drivers. Hes taking you for a ride.

>>17105285
This is true. you cant say a precedent is invalid because its old you have to point to the specific court case in which that precedent/s were presented and over ruled by highest order. Op set the terms "non commercial drivers (unregistered at the DMV or never registered) driving/operating private non commercial motorvehicle/automobiles

Bootlicker uses a case involving a commercial driver not a private one. And then proceeds to fail to point to the order which the previous precedents became invalid because they never became invalid in the first place

>>17105156
>Requiring a permit that proves you are competent enough to operate a motor vehicle (for lersonal or commercial use) on public roads is not an arbitrary or unreasonable restriction. It's more than reasonable
>source my ASS

>>17105156
"It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will."

>It is not a mere privilege
>which a city may permit or prohibit at will.

Literally right there anon.

>>17105285
>Requiring a permit that proves you are competent enough to operate a motor vehicle (for lersonal or commercial use) on public roads is not an arbitrary or unreasonable restriction. It's more than reasonable

Based on what precedent did the judge make this verdict off of? When was requiring a permit to operate vehicles on public roads to proove you are safe defined as reasonable and within ground of the Constitution?

>>17105316
I am using a case op quoted several times in the last thread
Thompson WAS NOT A COMMERCIAL DRIVER, his permit was a commercial permit, the case still clearly states a city issued permit is needed for anyone to use a motor vehicle on public roads (personal or commercial use)


>>17105337
The difference being the city CAN do whatever they want AT THEIR WILL with street side businesses and COMMERCIAL vehicle use, but they CANNOT unreasonably or arbitrarbly restrict or permit PERSONAL travel in a vehicle (meaning they can't do it at their will)

Holy you people are stupid!
I even used caps on the keywords so your monkey brain can understand

>>17105382
His permit was not a commercial permit*

>>17096472
lmao are you fucking serious? I can operate an unregistered and, ergo, uninsured 4-wheeled method of transportation for the purposes of private travel WITHOUT a license to do so?

I bet you could also own an unregistered grenade launcher without a license too!

>sovereign law faggots use out of context quote from a case to support their bullshit arguments
>someone with a working brain actually reads the case they are blindly quoting
>Edgy losers going full damage control and mental gymnastics because their autism won't allow them to be wrong

Lmao

So, you do realize that even if you're correct and this goes through the supreme court it will be the easiest bipartisan amendment to the constitution ever right
nobody other than you wants people to be able to drive on roads without license
literally nobody

>>17104967
It's not just prohibit. You cannot have your right "permitted" as well.

You literally have to be tricked into getting a permit.

>>17105492
>anon i swear to you people dont totally hate the DMV or ANYTHING related to it youre outnumbered!

File: twingo mating dance.jpg (128KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 900x506px

This vehicle with a motor isn't actually a motor vehicle lmao

>>17105394 #
The entire case is about a commercial driver(hence he has a permit that was able to be revoked IN THE FIRST PLACE.) NOT A PRIVATE TRAVELER. HENCE WHY HE HAD TO SAY THE PHRASE "drive OR OPERATE" TO CLARIFY THAT COMMERCIAL DRIVERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DRIVE(COMMERCIAL) OR OPERATE(PRIVATE) ANY MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT REGISTRATIONS NOT THAT A PRIVATE TRAVELER CAN NOT LEGALLY OPERATE A PRIVATE HOME ASSET AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS.

See >>17105285

>>17106832
people hate the dmv because it's inefficient not because they inherently disagree with the concept of road registration
people like accountability for other retards on the road, and law makers especially do
so y'know good luck with your little battle bubber

>>17106846
A motor vehicle has two known legal deffinitions recognized by court of law. Commercial motor vehicles and private motor vehicles. Both can be reffered to as simply "motor vehicle". Which deffinitions are you refering to exactly?

>>17106874
>people like being told automobiles arent a valid means of transportation without a permit
>people like the state deciding if someones invention is a commercial or private one rather than the means of which it is put to use

No they dont. Nope. You are a fucking retarded bootlicker if you really think this. People are just being tricked and dont know automobiles can be commercial or private and only commercial vehicles require a license to drive.

If you are ok with this. Fuck. You.

>>17106908
Meant for
>>17106871

>>17106871
You are still accountable if its your fault in an accident. You arent forced to have insurance as one(private travelers) but the court can fine and jail you if youre sued.

You are still subjected to obeying traffic laws like speeding and paying the fine for speeding.

Nothing about being a private traveler in a private(home assets) motorvehicles makes you "unaccountable"

>>17106908
Here's the thing: in a perfect world, I wouldn't want this. I would love to drive fucking ridiculous things in the twisties with no cops to bother me because I'm just having a good time but that's not the reality we live in, anon. The constitution isn't the magic document that changes reality like you think it is, it is an excuse for a liberal republic to espouse liberal republic ideals and contextualize them as the standard of which society has been and always will be. If you suggest something that doesn't go along with their ideals, they'll just shut it down and tell people that idea was never a thing in the first place.

>>17106935
Hit and runs would be massively harder to track, cops would lose their favorite moneymaking tactic (stop light cameras), all in all the law would be much harder to enforce without registration and lawmakers and law enforcers do not like that.

>>17105382
>Thompson WAS NOT A COMMERCIAL DRIVER, his permit was a commercial permit,
>commercial permit,
For driving a motor vehicle? Thats known as a drivers license.

>>17106942
None of that is constitutional geounds to eliminate a constitutional right as defined by court of law.

>>17106976
>The constitution isn't the magic document that changes reality like you think it is
They won't give a shit. The citizenry won't give a shit when they get rid of that right. The world does not work the way you want it to work, sorry. I really don't know what to say.

>>17106942
Its almost like we have a concept of Justice and cities and states have to abide by our constitution and constitutional rights! Who knew!

And now youre just another bootlicker who realized he objectively was unable to proove unlicensed(one without a commercial permit to operate automobiles) citizen can not operate am unregistered automobiles.

Get fucked. Your arguments will now consist of "J-just TRY to use precedents to win a court case. YOULL SEE"

>>17106988
Im sorry you lost the arguement on objective grounds and now you have to resort to fear mongering. Get btfo any time by me again anon.

>>17107004
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I am okay with you winning that court case - if you did, I think it would be really, really funny. They would within the week get a bipartisan group together and get an amendment through to make sure nobody can ever take advantage of it.
If I'm wrong, please do win this battle so I can go take project cars up into the hills for some fun driving without worrying about whether they're registered or not that would be cool as fuck.
also just saying calling me a bootlicker when i am describing the core document of american society disingenuous and heavily implying i don't respect the government while you believe that if you just show the court the Truth and Justice of your case they will approve and give you your Freedoms you Justly Deserve is really funny tbqh

File: Initial_D.png (202KB, 729x603px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 729x603px

>>17095276
>bunts havin a smoke.gif
>bunts
Bunta

>>17100930
How does bearing serialized art change use

>>17104811
>employed

How can an individual be as an employed person, if it never receives a paycheck

>>17107419
You are for Hire. Not employed. You qualify in the eyes of the fed and state to travel other persons or complete commercial buisness in you commercial motorvehicle. Basically if you want to be a pizza delivery boy, YOU MUST RECIEVE A LICENCE TO DELIVER PIZZA BY MOTORVEHICLE

>>17107333
Because you are officially, in the strict legal term, a "commercial driver" or Driver(license individuals) of a commercial automobiles once you sign your name at the DMV. Look it up.

>>17107457
Nonono anon. Listen. You are "employed" by the DMV. YOUR AUTOMOBILES ARE FOR HIRE.

>>17107478
Oh. Wtf

>>17107495
Basically you are a commercial driver certified by the DMV and you and your automobiles are for hire of commercial uses.

I don't understand, how is a car not a motor vehicle? Does this mean I can also drive unregistered semi trucks and ATVs and stuff?

New thread when this ones getting there..

>>17107578
Anything over 10,000 lbs neefs a licence to operate. Motor vehicle has a private and a commercial meaning that can both be simply as "motor vehicle" ICOL. Specify your deffinitio

>>17107596
What if I take the trailer off or do some weight reduction

>>17105285
>taking you for a *travel
Fixed that for you.

>>17107581
When I feel like it faggot. I'm busy, Mario kart came out. I want to travel the karts in it.

>>17107613
Does it have stickers and a license plate on it?

Not sure how heavy they are without it.

>>17107716
Doesn't adding stickers and a plate make it a motor vehicle?
Why would I do that?

>>17107724
It makes it a commercialmotor vehicle.Without these you own a private(house asset) motor vehicle.

>>17108137
I need a license for the second one, right?

>>17108180
Private house asset motor vehicle aka unregistered automobiles, no, IF you are NOT A DRIVER OF ANY CLASS no

>>17108316
Alright this is getting confusing.
So I can have an unregistered vehicle but need a registered driver to drive it?

>>17108343
No. As a registered commercial driver you can not drive that unregistered vehicles. An unregistered travelers, or private driver, may, however, drive it. You, as a driver can only drive cars that are registered.

>>17108362
But you just said you need a license unless you're not the driver.

>>17108362
And private driver/driving/ in its casual deffinitions not commercial hence the private added.

>>17108373
Where?

>>17108373
You need a license to drive register vehicles. When you have a drivers license you may not drive an unregistered car(you agreed to this in the contract you signed when you got your account there) if you are a registered driver.

People without dmv accounts may travel in their unregistered (household asset) automobile on public highway streets free of permit do to right of travel. Did you read the first thread?

>>17108430
>DMV accounts
Burger here, what country are you from?

>>17108507
America. USA. You have an account at the dmv fellow burger. This entire thread is about american laws read the first first thread for reference to your rights to travel. Automobiles are a recognized right to travel for private affairs. For Travelers. Not Commercially (and driver under a class, class a drivers license for example)Drivers.

>>17108532
**(a driver...

>>17108532
>Recognized
Then why have my friends been arrested for driving without licenses?

>>17108545
They are registered at the dmv. They have a license. They didnt drive with it.

>>17108553
No they didn't, that's why they were arrested.

>>17108545
When you sign up at the dmv to get a license you are recognized with or without a license on you because youre locked in a system.

Your friends would have to surrender their accounts and vehicle plates/license registered with the dmv to the dmv. Then they are in legal right to TRAVEL in PRIVATE HOUSE ASSET VEHICLES. And automobiles are categorized personal household affects. IF THEY ARE UNREGISTERED.

>>17108587
They never had licenses

>>17108610
What were they traveling and a cop has the right to detain for 24 for questioning but you can sue if he tries to fuck with your rights.

>>17108694
And fuck with your right refers to trying to pin you with a "driving without a license" when its clear you were not driving commercially as that law only applies to commercial vehicles and drivers. You can get a speeding ticket however for instance.

>>17108727
and they have no legal precedent to force a permit to travel(without just processing) in your private vehicles. There is literally a precedent against it.

>>17108743
you're going to have to bust this one wide open with a prominent legal case because right now this is on the same level as most other chain emails from the mid 2000s that your grandmother would send you

If I got my license revoked for a few DUIs, would it be legal for me to take my plates off and keep driving?
Asking for a friend.

>>17108754
Its all backed by SC legal precedent go fuck yourself.

>>17108790
Tell me. Does this revoction mean your friend would have to reopen their account at the DMV because it is closed or suffer penalties to be privledged again? Was the account at the DMV closed?