/pol/ is too fast, wanted to have a thread about American laws concerning freedom of travel.
en.wikipedia.org
How many americans realize you have a right to travel on public roads without plates or license in a automobile? Why do SO many americans register themselves as a commercial drivers when you are, in the legal sense of the word, traveling?
Other urls found in this thread:
wearechange.org
youtu.be
lawfulpath.com
snopes.com
scholar.google.com
twitter.com
>misinterpreting a law this fucking bad
lol
am i being detained or am i free to go?
Except I'm not?
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
LOL you have a right to travel by horse, bike, or foot.
Go to /n/
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
I could go fucking on with these supreme court cases. There is a CLEAR right to travel in a automobile.
"For much of American history, the right to travel included the right to travel by the vehicle of one's choice, and courts occasionally struck down regional regulations that required licenses or government permission to travel on public roadways. With the advent of the automobile, however, courts began upholding laws and regulations requiring licenses to operate vehicles on roadways. Constitutional scholar Roger Roots has referred to the forgotten right to travel without license as "the orphaned right."[19]"
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
>” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
If that doesn't tell me i have the same rights as a horse carriage you better link some evidence form supreme court cases that start traveling in an automobile is illegal.
it specifically states in the first paragraph that it was left to the states.
and it has been
why do you care anyway? its not 1850. there's 300 million people and they are all driving 2,000 lb missles. there has to be accountability.
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Reminder DRIVING is a privilege. TRAVELING is a right.
When the officer asks you "how fast were you driving" CORRECT HIM. "I was Traveling, not driving sir."
Because your being extorted by a system(insurance, tickets, ect ect) when they do not apply to you as you are not a commercial driver.
People are being forced to pay for insurance they do not need and its abuse based on our misunderstanding of a word.
see
" RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . ."
Its not up to the state if it violates the constitution. Unjust judgment had been made, and people gave up rather than trying to take it further, but that doesn't mean a state has the right to enforce a law that is literally violating the constitution.
>dude anarchy lmao
yawn
>obey the law
>LMAO YOU ANARCHIST
dude what
Seriously. You read the law, and "say! Oh!I'm NOT a driver! I don't make a profit directly off of driving like a taxi or pizza delivery boy! That means i can drive without plates or a license according to our supreme court.
As long as your car have stickers and plates, its ILLEGAL for anyone to operate it without a license. HOWEVER remove these and turn them in at the dmv and shut down your account its legal to travel in said vehicle.
*" How is that anarchy in the slightest when someone GOES OUT OF THEIR WAY to read and understand their legal rights and the law?
>its not 1850. there's 300 million people and they are all driving 2,000 lb missles. there has to be accountability.
The law doesn't go out of its way to make sure we take classes in not stealing, doing our taxxes, ect ect. If it is up to us to educate ourselves on every other right but driving, in you mind, should be exempt? Should we not have mandatory classes in our schools like we used to, if your concern is public education?
You aren't paying to travel. You're paying for the right to operate a motor vehicle in a public area.
>insurance they do not need
Get the fuck out of my country, Pablo Brown, there's enough of you uninsured niggers and spics roaming around crashing into people who are then shit out of luck because some idiot wrecked their car.
>You aren't paying to travel. You're paying for the right to operate a motor vehicle in a public area
I'm not poperating a mortovehivcle. I operate a AUTOmobile. One is commercial,the other is private, as recognized in the legal sense.
You have the RIGHT tot travel free of charge in an automobile.
>OMG you mean you DONT want insurance to be mandatory??
Yes because its MUCH cheaper to afford insurance when it wasn't mandatory but you wouldn't know anything about that you underage shit. Also I'd rather be able to save the hundreds i drop on it a month into a savings account. Then if something happens to me that isn't strickly automobile related i can actually afford to save me ass because i have spending power as a citizen rather than being nickle and dimed.
I pay property tax, i get taxed out of my pay check, i get taxed every time i buy something. I am always being taxed I constantly pay for public serviced in this way just as everyone else is. You should be angry at the welfar esystem redircting our budget from industrial/frustructure/science/military/ect to socialized benefits more than you should be angry that i have a right tot ravel in an automobile. In fact you're just autistically screeching if anything rather than making counter arguments that im breaking the law or doing any actual harm. There is no need to willing subject myself to a mode of extortion is i legally am in the right to not to.
Everyone has the right to travel. It's the right to use government owned and maintained roads that requires you to pay up some cash. That asphalt isn't free.
>I'm not poperating a mortovehivcle.
Whew, that's good. I don't know the laws in the Vatican offhand.
Yes, like from when you purchase from a business, or own property, your paycheck ect ect.
Why should i, as a citizen, subject myself to more when i know i have the right to do other wise and why would you choose to do otherwise when you could put the money you'd save from maintaining a license to donations, ect ect? Its MUCH better to fund aprivate buisness to fix a road than ask the state. It gets done quicker, and probably better. NO middleman.
>poperating
lol
*operating is obviously what i meant user.
Please test this in the courts, OP.
It already has been, in our highest order of fucking court no less. Heres supreme court cases;
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
wearechange.org
Basically is people en masse started closing their dmv accounts, a massive freedom habbening would ensue. You can probably get away with it locally. No doubt localjudges and cops have no idea you have a right tot ravel without plates. Carry your title of origin with you at all times.
DMV Employees HATE HIM! This Lawyer Saves $200 Per Year With One Simple Secret The Government Doesn't Want You To Know
No mandatory insurance, no mandatory inspection(in state required), no mandatory renewal, immunity to tickets and penalties to drivers(not the laws regarding speeding, cops can still warn or detain your for traffic violation, but will be unable to issue a valid ticket to a driver when you are not a driver. Traveling without a license plate is not a violation of law, he can only do this and punish you if you actually sped and can prove it for instance) is saving hundred/s of dollars a month thousand/s a year minimum.
>the right to do otherwise
Like what?
You need to know a few things about the world:
The law is not holy scripture or high minded philosophy, but people follow it as if it is.
The law is only law as far as the police enforce it, and what the police enforce is law regardless of the legislature.
Only after you have been arrested may you question the actions of the police. Before that point, all resistance is treated by the police as an admission of guilt and a reason to exert more force as you are a guilty person attempting to escape arrest.
You have the option of suing the state over the injustice of the law itself. To do this, you must not be caught breaking it in the first place.
Your third option is to out-force the enforcers. You will die attempting this.
Court costs a lot of money unless you are, yourself, a lawyer.
The police and state have very good lawyers. Most notably, the state itself is made up ENTIRELY of lawyers. And they are all better lawyers than you.
Complain about morals. Complain about ethics. Extoll the virtues of your superior system. Complain about the law in legal terms. It doesn't mean shit until you take it to court. Tell me, do you think you can win in court?
Did the last guy win?
I'm pretty sure they mean that if you can pass the test for a license, you're free to go on any road that you please. And a person's license isn't 'prohibited or permitted at will', there are strict definitions for the suspension of driving privileges and there are strict regulations that enable a person to obtain a license.
You don't know much about constitutional law, do you.
Do it dude, do it for us. Tell the cops it's your right when they stop you ;)
NO. You, as a DRIVER need alicense to drive REGISTERED motovehicles on the road. As a TRAVELER you can drive unregistered automobiles(hence the name chance) on public roads. Its very clear.
Have fun getting the shit kicked out of you and looked a like a dumbass in front of your local court system.
To turn in my license, registration, ask for my OC, and then drive on public roads without being a registered driver because at that point you and your vehicle are no longer commercial. This IS the law, i have linked several instances proving this and quoted the cases regarding these laws ITT, many people have no idea. Hence why no one is able to fight me with arguments based on cases in the supreme court, just word of mouth.
You have an absolute right to pull the DMV dick out of your mouth, and unregister your car from them, and then drive on the roads no longer as a "Driver" but a "traveler".
A cop willpull you over, ask for registration, always be firm you are NOT a driver. You will probably go to court, as well as a night in the county jail, because they will be confused and it will show you how ignorant people are of the law.
>haha these memes will shame you and others from knowing and acting on your rights! Look everyone, user is trying to understand his rights!
AM I BEING DETAINED user?
So plan on that hapening everyday?
Seems worth it.
Not really, after the first couple of times the local PD gets over it and becomes actually educated.
But i mean, yeah, pulling that state dick out of your mouth is difficult, but its almost like i don't want to continue paying into a system that is abusing people's lack of knowledge on their legal system and the definition of works within them because it morally fucked up and a very expensive burden on the common man.
I figured making a thread on it would be interesting, considering people assume the travelers law only applies to walking, bikes, horses, ect and drop some truth bombs for fun.
but if you're operating the car, you're the driver, and you're driving. it doesn't matter if you're registered or not.
if you're not operating the car but using it for transport, you're travelling.
Are you one of those "sovereign citizen" morons?
No,operating a car does not mean you are a driver. This is in legal talk,user. You are using the phrase "driver" that the common man had been mistakenly using for a long time. In legal terms, Driver is a licensed commercial persons driving a licensed commercial(commercial=registered).
If you are registered, your car is registered, you are a driver and you drive.
If you are unregistered, and your car is unregistered, you are a traveler.
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:
"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
If you are a registered driver, and your car is registered with the dmv(hence the M instead of an A, M(motor vehicle) is commercial A(automobile) is private), you are a driver in the legal term.
If you do NOT have alicense, and do NOT drive a car registered for commercial driving(DMV plates, stickers,ect) you are legally allowed to drive this AUTOmobile on public roads free of license.
>Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
honestly that's pretty fucking retarded. shouldn't matter if your car is registered or not, the act of driving is the same no matter what.
>you are legally allowed to drive this AUTOmobile on public roads free of license.
*drive should be *travel, my bad keep it legal and all
This is the law. Fight me over it.
So what about insurance? If you get into an accident that's your fault and you total someone's shitbox? Are you just going to pay reperations out of pocket?
From Thompson v Smith
>The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking under rules of general application permits to drive an automobile on its streets
"Sir, I wasn't actually driving! I was travelling!"
Acoreing to the copious amount of supreme court cases on the right to travel, yes. Several people have won.
You can do that for them. Or you can refuse and someone can file a lawsuit and attempt to get it out of you that way.
They can not revoke your right to travel by operating an automobile without due process or state of emergency. You have to be deemed in court of law to have it taken away because of your crimes, or, for instance, in case of war, the government can shut it down completely and allow only military acess the roads.
>ITT: Stefan Molyneux sticks his fingers in his ears and screams about how he doesn't have to follow laws because driving and traveling are two different words
>The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking under rules of general application permits to drive an automobile on its streets
no they fucking can't, whose precedent is higher, the supreme court or some shitty city judge?
fuck off ANTIFA
American education sucks; the thread.
We had a containment board for that im sorry it is massively popular because yeah, they are fools.
trying this type of lingual gymnastics might fly on a yotsuba b themed imageboard but I want you to get back to us in 6 months to a year after all your court cases have concluded. I'll be here.
PEOPLE FROM POL ARE SO MENTALLY DEFECTIVE THAT THEY CANNOT EVEN CORRECTLY INTERPRET THE LAW
I didnt read all this shit, but I'm glad insurance is mandatory because my Tacoma was hit by a nigger and I didn't pay a dime of the 12k it took to fix it.
I'd say that I wish the board would be nuked again, but then the fags would just spill over into other boards. Probably mostly /b/, though, so it's no one's loss.
So basically act like a ghetto woman? Gotcha.
>i dindu nuffin
>stop signs are raciss
>i need mo money fo ma programs
You do realize this only means that you have the freedom to ride a bus right
All this shit becomes null and void the second you become the one behind the wheel, as per the language already posted
That, and they'll just nail you for driving an unregistered car on the local roads because you can't teleport to the interstate.
Ask me how I know OP doesn't actually own a car.
City judge. The federal courts have no jurisdiction where the interstate commerce clause does not grant it.
Go back we don't want you here faggot
>not reading the thread
user literally gave us a shitload of evidence it wasnt breaking the law
Actually re read those supreme court cases. It is clearly stated private automobiles(hence the word AUTOMOBILE BEING USED NOT MOTORVEHICLE) have the SAME rights to freely use public roads as catriages, bikes, ect
>Itt user points out your rights and laws followed by several proofs of the supreme court backing him and other anons screech autistcally at him with absolutely no solid counter arguements proving him wrong
Wow what a great thread. Fucking idiots dont know driving is commercial and traveling is personally in the eyes of the law. It is not illegal to travel in a private(that is an unregistered vehicle) automobile. It is illegel to travel without a liscense in a motorvehicle(a registered car), but not an automobile.
*carriage like with the horses
>That, and they'll just nail you for driving an unregistered car on the local roads because you can't teleport to the interstate.
>implying there is such a thing
Any road funded by state or goverment for public use is known as a piblic highwaysstreet in legal terms.
At worst, a buisness can have unregistered cars towed off their property. But no law can prevent you from using a public road without due process
No user. They do not have more power than the supreme fuckig court. Hence why the supreme court is your last chance for justice of you keep pushing your case after losing. If you do not agree woth the city judge its why you always have a way to take your case to higher powers.
Travelers are still subjected to obeying traffic laws. Punishment is enacted differently however as you can not write a traveller(well he can, but it doesnt have to be final)a ticket and force him to pay it unless you can proove he was a driver in court.
stop samefagging
Did you even read the article you just posted, you fucking retard?
>With the advent of the automobile, however, courts began upholding laws and regulations requiring licenses to operate vehicles on roadways
Of course you didn't, reading 4 paragraphs of a wikipedia article before shitposting is just too much to ask apparently...
Nope;
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
/pol/tards really need to stay in there containment boards desu.
Is that your default answer when you are uncomfortable woth the truth?
Alphonse, you need to go back.
Read the thread. A wikipedia article is nothing compared to the supreme court cases being dropped. See post above.
Im sorry you are incapable of intelegent discussion.
I'm sorry you think you're correct Alphonse, stop shit posting and go drive in the highway without plates.
>tfw ride my bike with no license or registration whatsoever over the speed limit, and cops cant tell me shit
Cagers
BTFO
T
F
O
Stfu worst trip go shit up a bike thread with your shit truck.
>That use of language
Underage detected
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
snopes.com
Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 — Va: Supreme Court 1930 (available via Google Scholar)
>The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare
>The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets
>In other words, the court held that although the use of public roads is a right which citizens enjoy, local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone.
tl;dr you're a dumbass, and you still need a license
We're not talking about tickets. We're talking about liability for your actions and the consequences thereof. If you fail to yield, blow through a stop sign, if you smash someone's car or run someone over, will you pay out of your own pocket or go on your merry way pretending moral and ethical obligations to your fellow human beings doesn't matter? If you cripple a child, how will you pay for the hospital bills? If you total someone's car, how will you pay him or her back?
Yeah fuck this pedantic bullshit. I hope OP gets ran off the road for his faggotry.
snopes.com
Welcome to the concepts of constitutional theory and constitutional reality.
Laws aren't letters with some magical power to force people to do or not do something. They are only as powerful as the belief in them is.
The majority accepts the current enforcement situation, even if the letter of the law states otherwise. So arguing with the letter of the law is not going to help you achieving your goal.
Fuck you beat me to it. Should have read the entire thread before respond to this sovereign citizen level bs
>(including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone.
>mortor vehicle
But we are talking about automobiles user. They are different things in court.
And this is only if they can prove your driving is a threat to public safety. And if you dont agree with them you can take your case to the supreme court
>SNOPES
Oh shit hes retarded
You can sue me if you feel you have legal right to demand compensation. Thats how it works, and thats how it used to work when insurance wasnt mandatory for drivers. You dealt with ot, took someone to court, or you both come to am agreement
Im sorry. *travelling :^)
No, this is not the board for political discussions. That would be /pol/.
>you can take your case to the supreme court
I literally just posted an excerpt from a supreme court ruling that's linked in the snopes article you fucking moron lmao
scholar.google.com
but yeah please go try driving without a license or plates, let us know how that goes
i bet this dumbass is one of those people who films cops for no reason and constantly asks
>AM I BEING DETAINED? AM I FREE TO GO?
NOTHING in that said it was illegal to travel without a license in an unregistered automobile just that cities and states may impose certain rules but they are subject to question if the citizen feels violated hence why we are able to take our cases to a supreme Court in the first place
-- A city ordinance authorized the chief of police to revoke the permit of any driver who, in his opinion, becomes unfit to drive,
In other words you need be processed and deemed unfit first before they can ever do this to you. You smoking a bowl of stupid, son?
>NOTHING in that said it was illegal to travel without a license in an unregistered automobile just that cities and states may impose certain rules
rules like you need a license and registration? lol jesus christ you're a retard
>but they are subject to question if the citizen feels violated hence why we are able to take our cases to a supreme Court in the first place
yeah and you'll lose, just like the guy in the ruling you were just reading
>In other words you need be processed and deemed unfit first before they can ever do this to you
And you first need a permit before it can be revoked, dumbass
Gotta love it when dipshits on Veeky Forums think they've discovered some loophole in the constitution lol. Reminds me of that guy who tried to barge into a courtroom with his camera out and got tazed haha
>SUPREME COURT TRUMPS ANY LAWS BY CITIES OR STATES
It doesn't really though because the whole US government is based on letting states do what they want under federal guidelines, which is why some states have overbearing strict vehicle inspections and some have none at all.
Idiots.
I really would like to see what happens when one of you 16 year old lawyers tries to drive without a license. The cop is going to laugh in your face when you tell him the constitution says you don't need a license or registration, they're going to impound your car, and you can't afford a lawyer (who would likely laugh in your face just as the cop did)
These kids must not have thought this through, otherwise they'd realize how stupid they sound
You need a licence and registration to DRIVE. Not to TRAVEL. Pls learn the difference between these words. Travelers doesnt strictly mean a passenger like some are mistaken to think. It means anyone on their way to a destination on his own private time though his own means be it horse bike bus or automobile.