The Right to Travel, pt 2

Please. I beg you.

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

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

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.

"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.

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.

Does being dangerousily autistic count?

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.

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.

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

my post was meant for

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.

>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.

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).

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.

>“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.

Where did user 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?

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

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.

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;

Can we rangeban Americans pls

snopes.com/supreme-court-rules-drivers-licenses-unnecessary/

Well, if YOU dont like him then i know for a fact autistic lawyer OP is Veeky Forumsurguy.

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.

it's state law not federal law.

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

>Veeky Forums 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.

traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-tickets/driving-without-a-license.html

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

user, 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

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.

DRIVING is a privileged. TRAVELING is a right.

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 :^)

...

Nope
Try again

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

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

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

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

>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

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

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.

see post linked above.

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!

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

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

>The US
>respecting human rights

Enjoy being sent to guantanamo without charhes

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

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

case closed everyone!

>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

No,you operate it. Stupid.

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.

Trip of truth people

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

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.

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.

>literbike
There is only one license for motorcycles here, and it allows me to even drive quads
>Gun
Can own a .22lr without permit or spend 5k and get a private security permit and be able to get a .50 cal
>crime for the third
Dumb american making up shit again
>get fined for denying the holocust
Nope, dont se why I would denynsuch a despicable act commited against god's chosen people tho

Ameridumb

Stay BTFO, enjoy waiting 25 years to import a car

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.

>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

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

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

>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?

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.

>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

>Can be detained and sent to guantanamo with no charges
>"My rights are defended"

Rights are legal fiction, keep sperging

>connote
Merely a suggestion, not a set definition

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

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

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.

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

I dont need a permit to own a peashooter either you dumb sperg

You have no rights

>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?

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

No?

what country?

Any country? Just go to the nearest ghetto and buy a revolver

>B-but the government will send me to jail for misbehaving
Do you now understand how rights are legal fiction or no?

thats what i thought, cuck.

>Being this fucking retarded
Only in america, enjoy getting your legal guns seized if you ever say something bad about daddy governmemt

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

>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.

>Europoor
I already told you I am not an europoor you Ameridumb, do you have a single digit IQ???

>muh guns
How does it feel to know that the government can take them away at any moment they want?

>w-won't happen
Wrong, it has and will keep happening, and I have posted a link talking about the subject, the US government does not respect human rights, or else they wouldn't seize legally acquired property or detain civilians without charges

Keep bootlicking cuck

>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.

Are you autistic? Do I have to post tens of right-wing fear-mongering articles about american cops taking your property away and detaining you illegally or what?

offthegridnews.com/self-defense/guns-ammo/gun-confiscation-by-police-on-the-rise-coast-to-coast/

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.

>Hire a lawyer
Kek, tell me more about how the guys in guantanamo got their free call

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

nytimes.com/2016/08/13/us/politics/donald-trump-american-citizens-guantanamo.html?_r=0