It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
The Laws and Statutes themselves explain in PLAIN terms exactly what they are conveying. They all have pages upon pages of CONTEXTUAL DEFINITIONS to make it clear.
What you are doing is taking a law from a document describing non-commercial driving, and coming back with a definition for driving that is given as a definition within a law that specifically describes commercial driving.edit on 1-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)
LOL The contextual definitions CLEARLY indicate there is no such thing as "non-commercial driving" , ALL DRIVING is COMMERCIAL.
If your act of moving from one place to another, on the public highways, is not commercial, it is automatically "Traveling".
In the Court of Law, each word has a meaning.
These meanings are NOT the same as common language that you and I use in everyday life or on the street. That is why people study for years to become lawyers.
How can you argue about Law and not know this basic fact???
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
You are 100% wrong. Every Constitution in the United States differentiates between commercial and non-commercial driving.
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
which is why they issue Commercial and Non-Commercial Licenses.edit on 1-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)
You need a Commercial Driver's License if you operate:
Any combination of vehicles with a Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR) of 26,001 pounds or more, providing the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of the vehicle being towed is in excess of 10,000 pounds.
Any single vehicle with a GVWR of 26,001 pounds or more, or any such vehicle towing another not in excess of 10,000 pounds.
Any vehicle, regardless of size, designed to transport 16 or more persons, including the driver.
A vehicle required by federal regulations to be placarded while transporting hazardous materials.
Originally posted by FlyingJadeDragon
This guy's logic baffles me. Driving isn't a right,it's a privilege that one must earn. In doing so,you must show you're qualified to drive,hence the driving test. The driving license just shows you are,in fact,a qualified driver who understands the rules of the road and you (hopefully) won't present a danger to yourself or other drivers.
The license is also a convenient form of ID. It's certainly better than having to carry a passport around with you everywhere. Not everyone can get a passport,by the way. Maybe this guy is part of some agenda to push a national ID card that would eliminate individual State IDs.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
You are 100% wrong. Every Constitution in the United States differentiates between commercial and non-commercial driving.
What?
Here is the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
Find "Driving" in that document.
I can't for my life, find it. It must be hidden really super good.
PA Constitution
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
which is why they issue Commercial and Non-Commercial Licenses.edit on 1-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)
No. Try again.
CDL's are for specific types of Commercial Vehicles.
You need a Commercial Driver's License if you operate:
Any combination of vehicles with a Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR) of 26,001 pounds or more, providing the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of the vehicle being towed is in excess of 10,000 pounds.
Any single vehicle with a GVWR of 26,001 pounds or more, or any such vehicle towing another not in excess of 10,000 pounds.
Any vehicle, regardless of size, designed to transport 16 or more persons, including the driver.
A vehicle required by federal regulations to be placarded while transporting hazardous materials.
link
That's for Illinois, but most states are extremely similar in this.
Please, use Google. Read about it.
Originally posted by againuntodust
muzzleflash you are correct... I don't think people are understanding the powers the government possesses when it comes to regulating commerce.
Only commercial driving requires a drivers license, traveling in an automobile does not. You have to know the law to know this - and you need to know it inside and out to win a case in court. Once you sign yourself into the jurisdiction of the state and waive your rights, you are operating under commerce, and are regulated thusly.
Uniform Commercial Code, for those of you who are unaware.
"It is obvious that those who operate motor vehicles for the transportation of persons or
property for hire enjoy a different and more extensive use of the public highways. * *
* Such extraordinary use constitutes a natural distinction and a full justification for their
separate classification and for relieving from the burden of the license tax those who
merely employ the public highways for the transportation of their own property or
employees."
--Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss, 129 Cal. 21, 248 P. 235, 238." (State v. Karel, 180
So. 3 at 8.)
Relevant applicable stare decisis case cites relating directly to UCC 9-109:
“Under UCC §9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use
and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal
use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative.” James Talcott,
Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).
“The classification of goods in UCC §9-109 are mutually exclusive.” McFadden v
Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273 A.2d 198
(1971).
“Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of
employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC §9-109.” Mallicoat v Volunteer
Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).
“The provisions of UCC §2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of consumer
goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or used, that are bought
primarily for personal, family, or household use).” Maryland Independent Automobile
Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394
A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978).
IN RE BARNES
United States District Court,
D Maine, September 15, 1972
Bankruptcy No. BK 72-129ND, No. EK 72-13OND
[9109] Consumer goods - automobile for transportation to and from work.
The use of a vehicle by its owner for purposes of traveling to and from his employment is a
personal, as opposed to a business use, as that term is used in UCC § 9-109(l), and the
vehicle will be classified as consumer goods rather than equipment.
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
You are 100% wrong. Every Constitution in the United States differentiates between commercial and non-commercial driving.
What?
Here is the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
Find "Driving" in that document.
I can't for my life, find it. It must be hidden really super good.
PA Constitution
That's just it. You can't find anything about driving or cars in ANY CONSTITUTION.
Not even Alaska and Hawaii, whose constitutions were written up when cars were all over the place.
If you had a RIGHT to drive... better yet, a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to drive..
Why the heck didn't they put it there when they had the chance?edit on 1-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by daddio
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
You are 100% wrong. Every Constitution in the United States differentiates between commercial and non-commercial driving.
What?
Here is the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
Find "Driving" in that document.
I can't for my life, find it. It must be hidden really super good.
PA Constitution
That's just it. You can't find anything about driving or cars in ANY CONSTITUTION.
Not even Alaska and Hawaii, whose constitutions were written up when cars were all over the place.
If you had a RIGHT to drive... better yet, a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to drive..
Why the heck didn't they put it there when they had the chance?edit on 1-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)
ONCE AGAIN, IT IS A PROPERTY RIGHT!!!!
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Yeah, and non-commercial driver's licenses are for vehicles LESS THAN 26,001 pounds... and there are different statues and regulations regarding each.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
You clearly do not get it.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
You said "DRIVING a car without a licence" which is ILLEGAL.
DRIVING = Commerce.
Licence = Regulating Commercial Activity called "Driving"
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Please please understand what you are saying.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
I can tell you just are willfully ignoring all of the information a dozen folks have kindly linked to you which explain in PLAIN terms exactly what the law is.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Primordial
Quite true we can go back and forth.
To your final question I answer it as such. The term ignorance is no excuse for the law can easily be applied here. Because in today's world, nearly everything and every activity has some sort of law attached to it, we surely cannot know them all. It is a duty as a free citizen to understand the law regarding an activity you are engaging upon and operate within.
You don't need to take a test to ride a bicycle upon the roads, but yet you are expected to know the signs, the rules and the laws and follow them accordingly. Why then must we do the same when operating an automobile? Should we not then apply the law governing the use of automobiles upon the roads equally to those that utilize it for travel by different conveyance?
Originally posted by Caji316
Drivers license have NOTHING to do with drunk drivers. You think a piece of plastic is going to keep them off the road...lol...Any time you see the word "License" you are giving up some type of right for a state issued or gov. issued policy that they use for revenue....
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by whaaa
If and it is a big if...Georgia passes this bill. States would have to honor the laws as stated in the full faith and credit clause. Similar to a State that grants marriage licenses to gay couples. If that couple goes to another state that does not recognize such marriages, they are still married and are given full faith and credit because of Article IV, Section I.
States cannot arbitrarily undo lawful actions of citizens because they do not agree with another state's laws.
Originally posted by Human_Alien
Because we are FREE citizens. Free citizens shouldn't have to pay for their Rights.We were born with them and now that more and more of our FREEDOMS are being taken away each and every day, it appears law-makers are getting a little fed up with it too and seek a way to 'right' some of the wrongs in this country.
Originally posted by schuyler
Now, you could say, well, there was no driving back then. Well, you could drive a wagon or ride a horse. were you required to have a license for either? No, then it's the same for driving.
Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
Or perhaps you have not realized how things go? Back 300 years ago, I'm pretty sure you didn't need a license to drive a horse and buggy.
Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Human_Alien
Oh, what a GREAT idea. Give drunks and convicted felons the FREEDOM to drive anywhere in the state of GA.
What a bunch of morons.