a peace officer may not detain or arrest a person for no license

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

On the above, when you mention state member are you speaking of being an agent of the state or something else?

Essentially anything that would bring you under the ceiling of the state operating its own internal affairs.

[criminal.politics]

Originally Posted by freebeme

A license is not a contract, it is not property, it is issued in a proprietary capacity from the government.
Freedom be with you all.

i think freebeme might very well be right.. i think the right to travel freely, is well established. What has not been established is the right to travel with a motor vehicle freely.

here is why i say that.

"the appellant asserts that the state ... has unduly infringed upon his 'right to travel' by requiring licensing and registration .... However, contrary to his assertions, at no time did the State of Tennessee place constraints upon the appellant's exercise of this right. His right to travel ... remains unimpeded.... Rather, based upon the context of his argument, the appellant asserts an infringement upon his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state. This notion is wholly separate from the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental 'right'. Instead, it is a revocable 'privilege' that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures." State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953

Question:
ok so i have a right to travel.. just not by motor vehicle.
would that be a correct statement?

By definition though (in my state anyway) it is clearly established that a motor vehicle is a commercial entity?

This definition of "motor vehicle" does not include "private motor Vehicles" as distinguished from the 18 USC 31 "motor vehicle" definition and as was clearly distinguished in Bowman vs City of Kansas City

Question:
Would "private motor vehicles" fall under property rights? or maybe private property?

and last.

as "a 'free' man who is no longer a 14th Amendment citizen, he is not required to register his vehicle, wear a seatbelt or maintain liability insurance, ... also asserts that he is not required to abide by any state or federal laws." State v. Folda (Mont 1994) 267 Mont 523, 51 Mont St.Rep 1149, 885 P2d 426

Question:

what exactly does that mean? Sovereign citizen?

thanks

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Regular contributors on this site will have an angle which gets posted in response to certain matters that come up frequently: one of them is driving/ registration/vehicles etc.

So I have been over this before myself. The good thing is that this experience grows with the telling, and my own ideas have formed-out by comparing notes and engaging in conversations.

Probably everyone is at least partly right, in their own field. The best thing is that when many heads get together, the more chances for something good to come out.

My answer to the question:

Originally Posted by criminal.politics

Would private motor vehicles fall under property rights? or maybe private property?

is that based on reading the codes ie- the definition of a vehicle, a "private motor vehicle" the way I think you mean it is a contradiction in terms.

One of the qualities that makes a device a "motor vehicle" is being registered with the local state, so there goes the privacy.

An interpretation of the phrase "private motor vehicle" could mean a motor vehicle registered outside the local state- it's private to the domestic venue, a "nonresident"

IMHO it all sort of comes to a head with the fact that under international convention, a device may be a "private motor vehicle" just by establishing basic civil info anyway- so the two concepts "private property" and "public interest" are really one and the same.

Its weird, because if you go by the statutes as they are written it appears that a device which may NOT and does NOT "move persons or property", or otherwise do any "transportation", has no regulation at all! At least not under the Vehicle Code. But then there may be other parts I don't know or other laws that come into play.

By international convention the basic civil info of ownership and driver identity may be certified to establish prima facia evidence of the facts- but these are only relevant when required. Its not like carrying one's name around on a piece of paper creates a license.

It just seems that outside of local attachments, there is no specific item anyone has to carry around to justify license and registration, and insurance too, without these being needed for some particular purpose, not just for the sake of having them around.

Which to me ties right in with the concept of these threads: the state-issued license/registration is for a very particular situation excluding something normal and ordinary.

[Shoonra]

Presumably owning a motor vehicle sounds in property. And as long as the vehicle is on your own property, nobody seems to care if you've got a DL or not.

But put that vehicle on the public roads and you have to abide by the public laws regarding vehicles and driving.

The primary characteristic of a motor vehicle is that it has a motor, and it's still a motor vehicle even if it hasn't been properly registered.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

But put that vehicle on the public roads and you have to abide by the public laws regarding vehicles and driving.

Shoonra:

Please, for the sake of clarity and uniform cognizance of all the readers, can you please show the legal (without use of 'words of art') meaning of the word 'public' as used above 'public laws' and including other such 'public' entities as 'public employee', 'public servant', 'public buildings', etc., and as used in a phrase such as 'for the benefit of the public'.

Jerry Carlos

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by freebeme

I hope that clarifies it.

No, it didn't. You didn't answer my questions which might be my fault. So allow me to clarify. I'm claiming the right to travel which comes from the Creator, and I'm stating that the jurisprudence of common law recognizes that right. So essentially, I'm asking: What rule of law gives this government lawful right or legal right to limit how I shall travel?

As per question 2, I did find a suitable answer in your reply to ThomPaine. However, that leads me to ask the question: What rule of law gives the government the lawful right or the legal right to declare which vehicles are allowed to be driven when one's vehicle is private property?


On a side note...

Originally Posted by freebeme

I can give you a license to enter my land. I can withdraw my offer license to you to enter my land and you have no recourse.

Unless I'm mistaken, with regards to land, one grants another easement, not a license.

[gldskr]

freebeme

You are correct that a license is not a contract, and in the specific case, a driver's license. But your analysis is flawed.

Originally Posted by freebeme

When you get into my vehicle for hire, you are the licensee, I am the licensor. That is how the law sees it. I have given you license to be in and travel in, my car. I can give you a license to enter my land. I can withdraw my offer license to you to enter my land and you have no recourse

In the quote above, the state has presumably licensed you to operate a motor vehicle. I would highly doubt that this license would allow you to assign to a third party this privilege. If that were the case there would be no reason to have A DL since it could be leased through a third party.

What you have described is the operation of a franchise, as you correctly pointed out, in that what is being regulated is the operation of a motor vehicle.

A license is a grant of permission to you and you only for the privilege so granted. That privilege is not assignable, however, the franchise confers the property right of such. Lending your vehicle to your neighbor is not a license from you to him, since you have no authority to do this, but is an assignment of your franchise rights. I happens every day.

It is the same regarding your example of land rights, since 99% of the populace are clueless, they do not know that they are mere franchisees, as opposed to the sovereign who has authority to issue the license.

You are also correct concerning the UCC1-207. It is useless for those exersising their de jure rights. It only applies in a de facto jurisdiction, which is what this thread is all about.

This is deja vu all over again, we've been down this road before, by equally competent researchers of the code and their arguments fell short as well. It is a jurisdiction issue and nothing else.

gldskr

[Shoonra]

Jerry Pitts: Unlike some people on this website, I do not have special definitions of ordinary expressions. I use the expressions you asked about in the same way that they are defined in dictionaries.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by gldskr

In the quote above, the state has presumably licensed you to operate a motor vehicle. I would highly doubt that this license would allow you to assign to a third party this privilege. If that were the case there would be no reason to have A DL since it could be leased through a third party.

I will expand later this afternoon and more clearly show you what I am talking about with evidence.

[criminal.politics]

Originally Posted by criminal.politics

as "a 'free' man who is no longer a 14th Amendment citizen, he is not required to register his vehicle, wear a seatbelt or maintain liability insurance, ... also asserts that he is not required to abide by any state or federal laws." State v. Folda (Mont 1994) 267 Mont 523, 51 Mont St.Rep 1149, 885 P2d 426

Question:

what exactly does that mean?

Nobody has yet to address the above quote: and it also does not mention license.