Are we finally starting to realize that gov't has limited power under the constitution and bill of rights they seek to destroy?

U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A
CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.

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

yeah, thats what I want

just let any and everyone get behind the wheel of an automobile in TODAYS climate and be only REACTIVE by locking the up AFTER they have hurt or killed someone

cause it was their 'right'

I still haven't found anyone who practices law who agrees with what the OP says.

you can find it repeated all over the web,, though Im having a hard time finding it at any reputable source of law,,,,,

That's just it. What is being circulated via the web could simply be another false story. It wouldn't be the first one spread this way.

There's enough morons on the road already.

Do we really need to add more to the mix?

If anything, licensing and testing should be even stricter.

Ever driven in a country with little or no traffic or licensing enforcement? I have. It ain't fun. And a lot of people die.

Some even drive on the side of the road.

Don't see how or why the gov't should be involved in this. It's a right...

driving is a privlege not a right

always has been

one must remain eligle for their driver's license as it should be

there is too much at stake to let just anyone drive

for that reason I strongly disgree with letting illegals drive or anyone who cannot provide proof of insurance when renewing their license

no actually it is not ans never has been. you have to remain eligble to drive....it had always involved the gov't punkin. they grant and revoke the driver's license and patrol and maintain the roadways

rules are a little different for ranches and large farms

Yes, I do agree with sweetest. I have changed my mind.

Driving is most assuredly a privilege. SOME PEOPLE need not be on the road. So how's the gov't getting involved in this? (too lazy to read the article )

Transporting yourself and your property is a right. If you get a driver's licence, you are giving up that right and entering a contract with the state and you are agreeing to comply to their rules and pay their fees. Most people don't know this.

But if you are using the hwy for your business (personal gain) you need to comply with the state and pay the fees and licences for doing business using public roads.

A lot of police do not even realize this.

the fundamental right is to 'travel' there is no specific 'right' to drive without any type of regulation



getting a drivers license means you accept the responsibility (legal) of operating a potentially dangerous vehicle , that you agree to understanding the laws (speed limits, signs, etc,,) and that you know how to actually SAFELY operate a vehicle

Here is what the courts have said about this:

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.


seems to me that anytime you drive from A to B it is for "Personal Gain",regardless!

From your own Link!

Seems some on here have no idea what being "free" or having "rights endowed by their creator", or "unalienable" means.

NUMBER: 1056
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963).

This quotation, slightly altered, is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

SUBJECTS: Liberty
WORKS: Benjamin Franklin Collection

It would seem the only rights or liberties they care about are their own.

its why I have a 'drivers' license and not a 'traveling' license


and a way to identify that we are of the legal age (certainly driving is not a universal RIGHT which should be withheld until the age of 18 or which should be granted to grade schoolers,,lol)

and have the proper knowledge of operating the vehicle (Certainly wouldnt want bus drivers using their RIGHT to drive to transport my kids if they dont know how to drive)

So you are saying people have no common sense and the gov't MUST dictate, award and control our rights as they see fit....not our constitution or our creator?

Then why do we vote? Sounds like a dictatorship to me.... not the Republic we were awarded by the blood of our patriots

There is nothing in the constitution that excludes any particular type of vehicle to "travel" with. In this day and age, we use motor vehicles.

Not really, but it is ambiguous and can be interpreted that way. Why do you think State Patrolmen are always asking people "Where are you headed" or "Where are you going?" They have no right to impede your travel for stupid stuff like no wearing a seat belt or having a crack in your windshield....constitutionally. You have not hurt anyone or broken any laws. They have no right to stop you, ticket you etc.

I know several people in this county that don't have drivers licences. They have been stopped, ticketed etc. and they have been taken into court and gone through a bunch of B.S. Eventually they win, but they have to constantly battle the ignorant system. Now, the authorities who know them do not ticket them for no drivers licences.

They will ticket people who go along with their rules.