Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
In Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610, 59 L.Ed 385, 35 S.Ct 140, the Supreme Court upheld a state licensing and registration law (in a case where the motorist was alone in his car and no mention is made of the purpose of his trip into Maryland from DC) on the grounds that "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the [road]ways themselves. ... Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction the State put into effect the above-described general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses. A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose needs they are essential and whose operations over them are peculiarly injurious. ...[H]ere the statute at most attempts to regulate the operation of dangerous machines on the highways...."
In Anderson v. Driverless Cars Inc. (1929) 11 La.App 515, 124 So. 312, a case alleging negligence in entrusting a car to an incompetent driver, the court said: "Since an automobile, though not an inherently dangerous agency, may become such if intrusted to incompetent hands, it follows that the owner lending or renting his car must make reasonable investigation to determine whether or not the borrower or renter is an ordinarily competent operator."
And much more recently, Commonwealth v. Waters (1994) 37 Va.Cir. 575: "Because the operation of automobiles is an inherently dangerous proposition, the burden of justifying a stop of a vehicle that appears to have mechanical problems, one which appears to be operated by an impaired driver, or one whose location poses a danger to persons in other vehicles, is not a high one because of the risk of harm to the public."
As for your proposition, no case supports the notion that anyone is entitled to steer/drive/operate a car on the public roads - for any purpose - without a DL.
|
Exactly, no mention was made concerning the purpose of their trips. The state will always ASS-ume jurisdiction unless proven otherwise.
Your post does prove one thing: there have been activist judges around as long as the first motor vehicle laws.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra's infallible bookshelf references
Since an automobile, though not an inherently dangerous agency,...
|
Two points:
1. Here the court is stating an auto is not inherently dangerous.
2. Since when is an auto an "agency"?
It's clear you and your insecure cohorts believe you can regulate society into security. The same logic is being applied by the anti-gun lobby, despite explicit and strict Constitutional construction that says otherwise.
Can't wait to see what else you want to rehash (I'm sure I won't have to wait long).