Right to Travel Part 100

[RickA]

The permit is saying hey, can I have permission to drive on your roads

[marksgirl]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

Check out the attached document regarding travel in Washington state. Notice no law requires anyone to have a driver license for non-commercial use.

Thanks for posting this! It will save me a little bit of research time. I'm going to get all those "pseudo-laws" (RCWs) typed up real nice and carry it with me so I will have it on hand to show anyone who tries to tell me I need one.
We can be free! Yes!

[idknow]

Originally Posted by kgod999

i agree with shoonra. the case that comes close is murdock vs penn. the problem, and i think shoonra agrees with me on this, is that the traffic laws are civil, NOT CRIMINAL. thats the problem. ive got no problem punishing people for INJURIES caused by negligence, but not for PRIOR RESTRAINT LAWS and non victim crimes. the best way to attack the drivers license is the fact that its actually a passport. think about it. they check your papers to see if you can pass thru their right of ways. thats another issue. states dont own the roads so how they gonna dictate to you what to use to pass thru? they have right of ways. the people own the land the roads are on.

would a flowering giant-stink-plant by any other name smell just as bad?

sure, it would!

[idknow]

Shoonra,

but we're not discussin commercial activities;

we're discussin activities that we (even you) do in our private right. the right to move about to get from point A to point B - even you need to go shopping once in a while.

How is that commercial activity in terms of the motor vehicle code?

A; it's not.

[Shoonra]

With reference to Washington State law and the relevance to "non-commercial" driving:

City of Spokane v. Port (1986) 43 Wash.App. 273, 716 P.2d 945 review denied 106 Wash.2d 1010:

Ms. Port claims she is constitutionally entitled to this special status because she is not engaged in commercial travel. .... Ms. Port claims the State licensing statute applies only to commercial operators of motor vehicles. She claims since she was not engaged in the business of transportation, she did not violate the act [requiring motorists to be licensed].

An unambiguous statute is not subject to construction; there is no need to resort to dictionary definitions. ... The statute in question, Revised Code of Washington sec. 46.20.021, reads "No person ... may drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless the person has a valid driver's license issued under the provisions of this chapter." Ms. Port's argument that this provision requires a license only for those operating commercial vehicles is clearly without merit.

Nulter v. State Road Commission (W.Va. 1937) 193 S.E. 549, and quoted in several subsequent decisions, even in other states, such as Law v. Commonwealth (1938) 171 Va. 449, 199 S.E. 516:

The operation of a motor vehicle on the public highways is not a natural right, nor is a license to do so a contract or property right, in a constitutional sense. It is merely a conditional privilege which may be suspended or revoked under the police power, even without a notice or opportunity to be heard.

Sounds clear enough to me. Does anyone have a court decision that clearly addresses the question of driver licenses and says the opposite???

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

With reference to Washington State law and the relevance to "non-commercial" driving:

City of Spokane v. Port (1986) 43 Wash.App. 273, 716 P.2d 945 review denied 106 Wash.2d 1010:


Nulter v. State Road Commission (W.Va. 1937) 193 S.E. 549, and quoted in several subsequent decisions, even in other states, such as Law v. Commonwealth (1938) 171 Va. 449, 199 S.E. 516:


Sounds clear enough to me. Does anyone have a court decision that clearly addresses the question of driver licenses and says the opposite???

Please see the brief ``Right to Travel''
all your queries shall be answered.

[rentiap]

Sounds clear enough to me. Does anyone have a court decision that clearly addresses the question of driver licenses and says the opposite???

Try this Document on for size.
To travel is a right
http://www.outlawslegal.com/driving/travelright.htm
Shoonra and Fudge Boy Spleen.
Please! dazzle us with your BULL$*!+

Cheers,
Craig.

[Shoonra]

Once again (for the millionth time), travel is distinct from the operation of a motor vehicle. People have a right to travel but it doesn't translated into a "right" to be the operator of the vehicle. Decisions upholding the right to travel didn't even assure the litigant the right to a particular mode of travel much less the distinction of being the person at the steering wheel.

Again, we have citations and quotations of cases dealing with passport issuance, monopolies for bus and trucking companies, but not for getting to operate a motor vehicle without having a valid driver's license.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Once again (for the millionth time), travel is distinct from the operation of a motor vehicle. People have a right to travel but it doesn't translated into a "right" to be the operator of the vehicle. Decisions upholding the right to travel didn't even assure the litigant the right to a particular mode of travel much less the distinction of being the person at the steering wheel.

Again, we have citations and quotations of cases dealing with passport issuance, monopolies for bus and trucking companies, but not for getting to operate a motor vehicle without having a valid driver's license.

see Kitchie's posts.

we know the difference tween commercial activity and private activity and no one is arguing the point with you, Shroona.

what is your point?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by idknow

see Kitchie's posts.

we know the difference tween commercial activity and private activity and no one is arguing the point with you, Shroona.

what is your point?

But what you purport to "know" is meaningless in the eyes of the traffic courts.

It is an amalgam of snippets of quasi-related textual points with zero legal weight.

Activity on the road is neither commercial nor private and courts could care less what you consider it based on some bogus theory you picked up on the Internet or paid for in some whacko's seminar, tapes or books.

There are ways to fight traffic tickets, but this whole commercial nonsense costs people a viable opportunity to defend themselves.

Your credibility goes to zero when you wander off into the lunatic law lounge.