Letter To DMV Rescinding Reg

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

A current drivers license is, at least, nominal evidence that the holder has, relatively recently, proven an ability to drive safely. (If the motorist had got into serious trouble since his driving test for his first DL, he might not have been able to get a renewal of his DL). And current vehicle tags similar are evidence that the machine meets certain standards for roadworthiness.

Without Prejudice.
The "driver license" is distinct and separate from the hidden-on-the-grassy-knoll certificate of competency and if I am not mistaken at least one State's own code alludes to this.

In this way, the DL and the tags do serve to reduce accidents.

And I thought "George Carlin" was funny.

If there were no DL requirements, then there would be no way to take repeat offenders off the road -- except maybe to imprison them, for as long as they are supposed to not drive, at enormous expense to the taxpayers.

Some first 'offenders' are dead from having have crashed into things. And I've heard of rumors that they are still voting in some places.

Additionally, DL requirements discourage vehicle theft.

Tell that to a bunch of shady characters in the "bad side" of town with a 5-minit-chop-shoppe. "See my license? Dont steel my car. Fear me." Riiiiight.

I don't know of any remedy that would be perfect but this is a reasonable way of keeping unfit drivers and unfit machines off the road.

Shoonra, if you went blind neither you or I would likely swear out an affidavit of your competency as a motorist now would we? Well maybe you would.

And being struck by a car driven by an unemployed, uninsured, unlicensed motorist is just as damaging as being struck by a licensed, insured, and professional driver; maybe worse, since the unlicensed and uninsured twit is more likely to turn it into a hit-and-run. So there is considerable reason to require a DL for every motorist, any day and any hour.

If you dont want the risk dont get behind the wheel. Work from home. Surround your car with matresses. Or if you have an expensive car, buy a 4-cheep-1.

If you're going to insult people, I suggest you spellcheck your messages first.

=D

[rottweiler]

"And being struck by a car driven by an unemployed, uninsured, unlicensed motorist is just as damaging as being struck by a licensed, insured, and professional driver; maybe worse, since the unlicensed and uninsured twit is more likely to turn it into a hit-and-run. So there is considerable reason to require a DL for every motorist, any day and any hour."

What they used to do is pierce the offenders ear if they could not pay and they would be your slave for 7 years. At the end of those 7 years the slave had the choice of going free or remaining your servant. If they choose to remain your slave then you pierce their other ear and they are your slave for life. A hit and run or DUI would make it criminal so then he would be stoned to death. That old law is too harsh for sheeple, better to give them admiralty and then we have "justice". Under the admiralty if some leaker hits you it is tough luck, they go free to slam into someone else as long as they lack willfulness or are guilty of other "crimes". They can keep on slamming into people until they die. The point is the admiralty is not better than the common law, admiralty is the law of sheeple's choice. The admiralty is how the government gets rich and the victim's get the shaft.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

If you dont want the risk dont get behind the wheel. Work from home.

Great advice for the children who were killed walking to school by a scofflaw who sped through a school zone and drove over the curb.

Licensing may not eliminate all the dangerous motorists, but it definitely thins them out. Without a license they cannot rent a car. If stopped by a cop, they are immediately identifiable as ineligible to drive, and will probably be arrested - after the fourth or fifth time they may tumble to the downside of unlicensed driving.

[aksis]

SHoonra that logic is flawed.

Do you make money, (directly or indirectly), from people having licences?

It dosn't "thin out" anything that couldn't be accomplished with entries in the SCPOE. It is part of the illusion of security & another way to nickel & dime the people. It is also a crime to infring upon peoples rights, licencing a common right is an infringment.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

And current vehicle tags similar are evidence that the machine meets certain standards for roadworthiness.

Garbage Shoonra. In quite a few states the extent of a vehicle inspection is to verify it passes the smog test. They could care less about the condition of the tires or the brakes; what I know to be the two most critical components of a so called "safe vehicle".

I won't bother to address the other (invalid) points in your post as most of us have seen you go round on this before in the other travel threads and your bias is already known.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Great advice for the children who were killed walking to school by a scofflaw who sped through a school zone and drove over the curb.

Licensing may not eliminate all the dangerous motorists, but it definitely thins them out.

Hmmmmm.... I guess you would be talking about a licensed scofflaw then.

[Dillon Hunt]

Since Driving or Traveling in a private or public motor vehicle and/or a car are not prohibited by the Constitution in these united States of America these Rights/Powers are reserved to the people and protected by the Constitution for these united States of America per the ninth and tenth Amendments.

Constitution for these united States of America - Ninth and Tenth Amendments

[9] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[10] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE.

Rights of Citizens within the states of the Union

This larger body of "unalienable rights" is vast. In fact, it is so vast that no one, not even the judicial branch, has ever attempted to list the rights contained therein. This is best illustrated by the old adage that, "My right to swing my fist ends somewhere before it hits your nose". In short, a Citizen can do virtually anything he or she wants, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another Citizen, or endanger the community. Also inclusive in these rights are your protections against mistreatment by government; the primary protections being expressly stated in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
-- John Adams, Second President of the United States. (1792-1801)

The US Supreme Court has stated that because these rights existed antecedent [prior to] the formation of either the states or the national government they are outside the government's power to alter, modify, or abolish. How's that for some strong protection!


I, Dillon Hunt as one of the People do hereby Retain, Claim and Demand all my Unalienable Rights, especially my Unalienable Right to travel and/or drive (noncommerically) my private/public vehicles and/or my cars and I do not waive any of these/my Unalienable Rights.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by palani

Undoubtably a true statement. Would you care to elaborate more exactly just why a signed notarized document has no legal effect? Does it have lawful effect?

You can get almost anything signed and notarized.

Goofy things get notarized all the time. (Trust me, I've seen some.)

You could sign a a recipe for chicken soup and have it notarized but that wouldn't change the fate of the world one way or the other.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

....I, Dillon Hunt as one of the People do hereby Retain, Claim and Demand all my Unalienable Rights, especially my Unalienable Right to travel and/or drive my private/public vehicles and/or my cars and I do not waive any of these/my Unalienable Rights.

But the rest of us also have the right to protection from dangerous people.

[Dillon Hunt]

Exercising a Right in not dangerous with or without a license. Remember doing the right thing does not injure anyone. Do the wrong thing and you have to pay for it. I am not dangerous to anyone if I am driving/traveling safely. I am only responsible for myself not for other peoples driving skills.

Thanks Dillon