WA - driving is a PRIVILEGE they GRANT to you

[planetmark]

This is from the RCW for "Mandatory liability insurance". They can't be much clearer about their position on "operating a motor vehicle" can they? Also notice the propaganda piece about how you not spending your life-resources on "insurance" makes you a "threat to the people of the state". Good to know that I'm safe because everyone has that piece of paper in their glove box!

RCW 46.30.010
Legislative intent.

It is a privilege granted by the state to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state. The legislature recognizes the threat that uninsured drivers are to the people of the state. In order to alleviate the threat posed by uninsured drivers it is the intent of the legislature to require that all persons driving vehicles registered in this state satisfy the financial responsibility requirements of this chapter....

Living is also a privilege that is granted.

Henry Franklin

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw. 60 (1830).

"It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power...Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the person and property of its subjects is not law." Hurtado v. Calif., 110 US 515 (1984)

"Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken away." Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1883).

"Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute is required. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people." U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325.

"Consent in law is more than mere formal act of the mind. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake." Butler v. Collins, 12 Calif., 157. 463.

"A waiver of constitutional rights in any context must, at the very least, be clear; contractual language relied upon must on its face amount to a waiver." Fuentes v. Shevin, 107 US 67 (1983).

"Every consent involves a submission, but it by no means follows that a mere submission involves consent." Regina v. Day, 9 Car. & P. 722.

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125.

"Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

[squirrel]

Living is also a privilege that is granted.

It wont be long before that statement becomes true, and what are the people going to do about it ?

Nothing.

[Shoonra]

It's no so much driving itself that is the privilege. It is driving on public streets and highways. The govt is responsible for the safety of the public streets and has the responsibility and authority to limit the piloting of vehicles to people who have evidenced their fitness and compliance with the laws.

On your own private land you can drive, and let anyone else drive, almost any sort of vehicle you could imagine -- one without headlamps, without brakes, without any sort of safety protection, etc., - and do it at almost any speed. But only on your private land. If you want to move this unregistered vehicle to someone else's private land, you'd have to have it towed or carried or pushed, but not driven, there.

So, Shoonra according to you, ‘the govt is responsible for the safety of the public streets and has the responsibility and authority to limit the piloting of vehicles to people who have evidenced their fitness and compliance with the laws’ . How does your opinion correlate to the following court cite where it is the court’s opinion that no one has the constitutional right to be protected by the State.


Pinder v. Johnson, 33 F.3d 368, 372 (4th Circuit 1994):

'Our survey of the legal landscape as it existed in March 1989 indicates, that, in general, members of the public have no constitutional right to be protected by the State from harm inflicted by third parties. E.g., Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th Cir. 1983); Wells v. Walker, 852 F.2d 368, 370 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1121, 103 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 1987); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982).

Judge Posner aptly explained the reasoning behind this general principle when he stated in Bowers that: The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order....{Thus, because there is no} constitutional duty to provide such protection {the state's} failure to do so is not actionable under section 1983.

http://www.atgpress.com/dtom/dt076.htm

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

It's no so much driving itself that is the privilege. It is driving on public streets and highways. The govt is responsible for the safety of the public streets and has the responsibility and authority to limit the piloting of vehicles to people who have evidenced their fitness and compliance with the laws.

On your own private land you can drive, and let anyone else drive, almost any sort of vehicle you could imagine -- one without headlamps, without brakes, without any sort of safety protection, etc., - and do it at almost any speed. But only on your private land. If you want to move this unregistered vehicle to someone else's private land, you'd have to have it towed or carried or pushed, but not driven, there.

The above post is in direct contradiction with the court's ruling:

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.

So, which "opinion" is correct?

[Admin]

Ten points for Ice!

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Admin

Ten points for Ice! :y15:

Aw shucks... you're making me blush.

In another thread I saw a rebuttal that contained no real substance. And, even though pressed for it, there were no case or law cites presented ... just opinion and nothing more. I liked this one though. It's instances like this that allow all members to realize the exact intent of some of the more frequent posters.

Of course, I'm more interested in the research and experiences that are shared. The search for knowledge never ends.

(I also like to see the contradictions pointed out. "Serve and Protect"?!?!? What a joke!)

[Livefire]

Ice,

They (law enforcement) DO exist to "Serve and Protect".....question is WHO are the ones being served and protected!? LOL IMHO they are employed to serve we the people with all the citations, arrests, and court summonses that we can handle and protect the courts, bureaucrats and their ilk from us should we decide to exercise our God given right to defend ourselves against the bastards!