Privilege And Driving Rights

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Again, confusion between the right to travel and the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roads.

Its like beating a dead horse sometimes with you guys. Isn't there already a thread that Codee started called DRIVING=COMMERCIAL that discusses the definitions of DRIVER and OPERATER and so on.

Sure Shoonra, when you use those terms, you win. When you specifically look at the definitions, you don't. Plus, I can always fall back on the fact that infractions are not crimes and since Government Code Section 201 says the State can ONLY punish for crimes, they got nada.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by aksis

Shoonra,
Is the supreme Court holding that operating a motor vehicle registered in one of the States and traveling in a car is the same thing?

There certainly is a difference between traveling as a passenger, on foot, or by some vehicle other than a motor vehicle, and the operating of a motor vehicle on the public roads. The Court is dealing with the operator of the vehicle (driver) and not passengers.

Originally Posted by aksis

Are they holding that an automobile is a motor vehicle?

Very defiinitely, although the category of motor vehicles can include more than just automobiles, such as trucks, vans, buses, etc.

Originally Posted by aksis

Are they holding that one has no right to use their private property anyway they want so long as there is no infringment on the rights of others?

They are holding that the govt, as caretaker of the public roads, can regulate for the sake of public safety and efficiency what sort of vehicles can be put on the public roads and who is qualified to operate those vehicles.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

Its like beating a dead horse sometimes with you guys. Isn't there already a thread that Codee started called DRIVING=COMMERCIAL that discusses the definitions of DRIVER and OPERATER and so on.

By wandering from source to source it's possible to find a "middle", by exploiting trifling differences between sources. But the state laws and the courts have held that there is no practical distinction between driving a vehicle and operating it. In some places one or the other nomenclature is preferred; Texas, for instance, insists on calling its DL an "operator's permit", but the court decisions using the word "drivers license" have been used as precedent (and vice versa).

[greatwolf75]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

By wandering from source to source it's possible to find a "middle", by exploiting trifling differences between sources. But the state laws and the courts have held that there is no practical distinction between driving a vehicle and operating it. In some places one or the other nomenclature is preferred; Texas, for instance, insists on calling its DL an "operator's permit", but the court decisions using the word "drivers license" have been used as precedent (and vice versa).

Thank you Shoonra, you made one of my points for me. I was talking earlier about the courts liking to use word games and the above stated is what I'm talking about. The definition of a license (paraphrased) is to be able to do that which would otherwise be illegal. So what Texas is saying is that it's not illegal as long as you have a permission slip, but it doesn't have to be the license that they force you to have. Every other State of the Union says that you have to have a license which is what permits you to drive. People look into some of these cases and pay very special attention to the word games that they use. Shoonra, made another very point, where it was stated that wandering from source to source..., they can't even agree what is or isn't the meaning of the same law. There are only minute differences in the wording in the laws throughout the several States. Even with these small differences you get a million different verdicts on the very same issue under the same circumstances. In researching these cases the differences that I found came under (for the most part) the word game. Shoonra, you know the power of the word game. I don't want to argue with you Shoonra, I've never had a problem with you, only some small differences of opinions, I hope we can keep it that way.

[Shoonra]

No million different verdicts and no word games. Whether it's called a Drivers License or an Operators Permit, it's the same thing and steering a motor vehicle onto a public road without one is a serious infraction. Whether you want to quibble about whether an infraction is punished, the simple fact is that the various penalties imposed by traffic courts are not considered penal in the sense of the criminal justice system and the "correctional" system but administrative with a view toward public safety.

As I said before, not a single one of those cases previously cited about the "right to travel" held that someone could steer a car onto the public roads without a DL. No million different verdicts about it.

[redy2fiyt]

Shoonra,

I'm still awaiting your reply regarding infractions not being punishable by the State.

Looking forward to it. :-)

[IAMI]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

No million different verdicts and no word games. Whether it's called a Drivers License or an Operators Permit, it's the same thing and steering a motor vehicle onto a public road without one is a serious infraction. Whether you want to quibble about whether an infraction is punished, the simple fact is that the various penalties imposed by traffic courts are not considered penal in the sense of the criminal justice system and the "correctional" system but administrative with a view toward public safety.

As I said before, not a single one of those cases previously cited about the "right to travel" held that someone could steer a car onto the public roads without a DL. No million different verdicts about it.

This is a conclusion I've come to on my own, during the study I've done on the matter of driving without a license. I'm up in Ontario Canada, so many of our laws/statutes/acts/rules aren't as clear cut as the US ones... Now... I'm not saying that I WANT to agree with Shoonra in this case, but what I WANT is irrelevant. IF it's true... then it's true (please no esoteric or philosophical questions on what is "truth"... let's stick to facts in our current material universe ).
In every case that I have read, including the cites listed in this thread and others... I have NOT seen them say you "Do not need to be licensed". I have seen plenty of support for the right to travel. The courts agree... it's a right, and you are free to use the conveyance of your choice. If they said you cannot operate/drive an automobile/motor vehicle then they would be interfering with your rights. But they have ONLY said that your right to travel is a guarantee.
So many cites pointing to court rulings stating that people have the right etc... but look at what they DON'T say!
I have found that many of these cites are used to support the opinion that driving without a license is a right.
Then many other cites are listed that quote that a license is required (including act/statute(s) themselves)... and these are to support the opinion that one is required to have a license to drive a vehicle.
Why the two opposing court rulings?? Or are they REALLY opposing....

It is very tempting to gloss over when reading the cites which state the right to travel.

Can anyone point to a court cite (which states as clear as the ones which point to the right to travel), in which they state that a "License" is NOT required to drive/operate a motor vehicle/automobile?
Or that in exercising said "fundamental right to travel" excludes the requirement for licensing?
I'm not sure there are any... I have not read one before at any rate.

I'm just curious also... at what point would a license be required to operate a vehicle? Would a plane be considered a motor vehicle? Would anyone agree that those who are not licensed should fly airplanes? How about driving trains? (Yes... this is when the license = commercial arguments come in... but it's possible to own one's own plane... or even train for that matter)
Does one need a license to walk? Ride a bike? Run? Ride a horse? Drive/operate/control a horse drawn wagon? Row a canoe?

Now... I have asked these questions before in other forums... and the usual response is "Know who you are" and "why are you agreeing to their rules" and "why are you looking for a remedy in the courts" etc.
Many of these who respond thusly, seem to forget that these rules/acts/statutes/laws are enforced under a might makes right principal.
I agree with the principals and spirit of most trying to get from under the yoke of our overbearing governments, but I cannot afford to leave my family behind while I lounge in jail, get fined to bankruptcy or have my vehicles impounded. None of this licensing issue means anything if the people who are arresting/charging/judging/enforcing against you will not recognize your defense in the situation.

Anyway... ignoring most of the drivel in this post... can someone look at the bold text and provide an answer?

Cheers all!
IAMI

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

...and no word games.

BS Shroomra...the entire legal system is built upon word games. Statutes, rules and regulations are filled with them and the deception is propagated by those in the bar and legal profession.

[robhalford88]

IAMI, in the real world, a case where you may win would be dismissed on a technicality or something similar. You dont think the court would make a decision that blows the lid off of the game do you?

As for shoonra, the more you post, the better we see why you are in the library. You aren't very good with your advocating skills, are you?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

Shoonra,
I'm still awaiting your reply regarding infractions not being punishable by the State.

Infractions can be penalized but on a very low level -- small fines (usually under $500) according to a published schedule or formula, and possible disruption of the driving privilege.

But the significant fact is that an infraction is not a crime, which means that a great many of the legal characteristics of criminal laws do not apply to traffic infractions. For example, the trial of a traffic infraction is not entitled (as a criminal trial would be entitled) to an indictment, or a jury or maybe a court-appointed defense lawyer. Most significantly, being charged with a traffic offense (such as speeding), not being itself a crime, does not serve as "jeopardy" to prevent an additional charge of a crime (such as assault with a deadly weapon). It also appears that the Fifth Amendment requirement for an indictment or protection against testifying against oneself in a criminal case does not apply to the prosecution of an infraction.