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.

 

Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses

page: 10
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

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???


You are 100% wrong. Every Constitution in the United States differentiates between commercial and non-commercial driving. The DMV's also do this with Driver Licenses, which is why they issue Commercial and Non-Commercial Licenses.
edit on 1-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

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



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I have never said that one can use those cases as precedence to win such a case. But when you say "This is nonsense!" in direct reply to the referenced case, what exactly are you calling nonsense?

If you are saying it is nonsense to claim those cases will help you win a legal challenge regarding driving without a license, then I am with you. Earlier in this thread when I referenced those cases it was to point out that the Supreme Court recognizes the right to travel.

My battle, if you read through my posts here has been, in progression: There is a right to travel, licensing is nothing more than a revenue scheme and cannot possibly guarantee that drivers will become safer, that the laws and regulation that govern the roads; such as traffic signs, speed limits, etc are sound and just, and that it is the duty of a free person to understand the laws of an activity they engage in.

Licensing of persons to engage in an activity such as driving an automobile or even engaging in private business is nothing more than a revenue source for the state.

Overall, the law as it stand, to obtain a license should be followed until it is properly changed by the people via their state legislatures. I am actually very happy to see a lawmaker go about the process in the correct manner to try and change the law.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

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.



Just for those who do not understand or KNOW what a license IS and the difference from that and a "certificate", you get a "pilots CERTIFICATE" to fly, which shows you passed the tests to operate an aircraft. A "license"is a "permission to do something that without license would be unlawful". It is NOT unlawful to use your private property auto no more than it is unlawful to use ANY of your OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY!!

People, GET IT INTO YOUR THICK SKULLS!!!! Driving is an OCCUPATION. The use of an automoblie for transport and transportation of ones OWN personal and PRIVATE PROPERTY IS A RIGHT!!!

Please, for the love of God, pull your heads out of your rears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

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)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

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.



Yeah, and non-commercial driver's licenses are for non-commercial vehicles LESS THAN 26,001 pounds... and there are different statues and regulations regarding each.
edit on 1-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

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.


We will spread the word. Knowledge will reign in the Information Age.

Our collective Ignorance is gasping for it's last breath.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


EPIC FAIL!! No license is need for use of PRIVATE PROPERTY!!




"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.)


And these defintions and cases UNDER the U.C.C.;



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).


I could post literally thousands of cases here where the court has repeated AGAIN AND AGAIN< no license is need for the use of private property. Look at Ambulances, they are privately owned by the hospital and are used FOR PROFIT, do they have license plates? NO!! And there are many other examples.

In U.S. District court...



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.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


Actually, this thread is possibly one of the more important and enlightening ones I've seen here on ATS.

We blabber on for pages and pages about all kinds of conspiracies - government, cultural, military - and some of us refer (only sometimes jokingly) as feeling as though we might be in some sort of "matrix" - a reference of course to the Wachowski brothers' famous science fiction flick.

But the most amazing "conspiracy matrix" is the one many of us have readily accepted and integrated into our lives - the notion that government rules and regulations are axiomatic, should not be questioned, accepted fully and without any internal discord. This is a matrix of words, expectations and arbitrary rules rather than some sort of wonky science fiction concept.

The "Red Pill" represents the sometimes scary notion of individual "sovereignty". The assumption is that the man...the human being that we are which was created in God's (or your creator's) image, is never subject to any law, expectation or rule other than God's.

The "Blue Pill" on the other hand is happy rejection of one's individual sovereignty, acceptance of the rules and language constructs without question or doubt, and and blissful existence within in the comfort of a statutory cage.

Supporting the notion that a person should have a drivers' license suggests swallowing the blue pill, and it is a pretty good litmus test for determining if and how badly a person is trapped in the matrix...

Think about what it means to have a license: You agree to accepting the constraints of an outside "authority" in your peaceful movement from one place to another. You also agree to cease peaceful travel if that license is removed by the issuing authority. Furthermore, you regularly pay for the right to transport yourself via the conveyance in question (an automobile).

Most importantly, you agree to make yourself subject and subservient to an authority other than God...in our case, it is the state. The state becomes literally pre-eminent.

There are people here right now who believe they are enlightened; however, they have greedily swallowed the blue pill. They are trapped, and it appears to be a willing imprisonment.

I would encourage these folks to think of this thread, if they read it, as a "glitch" in the matrix. Find yourself a Morpheus (a good place to look is here), swallow the red pill and unplug from the matrix by beginning your research into the notion of natural law and individual sovereignty. If you are a chosen "one", it will change the way you think about everything you experience.



P.S. I would offer that there are many ATS members on this thread right now who could be Morpheus incarnate. We could all learn something from them, and maybe even get a "red pill" from them.

edit on 1-2-2011 by MMPI2 because:



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

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!!!!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

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!!!!


Sure, if it's not one then it's the other, right?

You can own plenty of things, but that doesn't mean you can take them with you wherever you go.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

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.


A "non-commercial driver's licence" is still COMMERCIAL LOL.

Driver = COMMERCE

Non- means it's not a CDL.

I know it's really confusing at first, but once you learn the terminology you will understand.

For example a Taxi Driver. He is using a non-commercial licence.
In PA for example, Taxi drivers also need to follow other rules, and they get a "certification" for taxi driving.
But it's essentially a non-cdl. But aren't they participating in COMMERCE? YES.

Because a "Driver's Licence" is commercial.

In PA a Chauffeur does not need special certifications. They just use a non-cdl. It IS COMMERCIAL though.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You clearly do not get it.


Sorry, mate, but I do absolutely get it.

It's those that are talking about ''pie-in-the-sky'' stuff, and then suggesting that their own eyebrow-raising beliefs constitute anything more than an expression of their beliefs.

I'm still waiting for a US citizen to successfully utilise that Thompson ruling, thus making it legal for people to drive on the roads without a licence.



Originally posted by muzzleflash
You said "DRIVING a car without a licence" which is ILLEGAL.
DRIVING = Commerce.
Licence = Regulating Commercial Activity called "Driving"


That may be what you selectively take from Supreme Court rulings, and a fantastical ideology of a centuries-old America that never existed in reality.

But what about a non-commercial driver who wants to drive the highways with his automobile ?


Originally posted by muzzleflash
Please please understand what you are saying.


Not only do I understand, but I've proved my points many times over.


Applied laws in the US > fantastical ''laws'' that never existed or materialised.

USA government 1 Ostriches 0

Game Over.



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.


I'm not ignoring any facts at all.

You can cite or quote any laws until the cows come home !

The actuality of the laws is the important feature that should be addressed.


I'm waiting for somebody to show me how this ''law'', that apparently gives the right for someone to drive a car without a licence, has actually been applied, let alone won in a court of law.


As always, the actuality to the claims is always found wanting.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

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?


I suppose it's because riding a bicycle recklessly is much less of a danger to the public than doing so in a motor vehicle. Of course there are exceptions but riding a bicycle without regard for the law causes the most danger to the bicycle rider as opposed to others. In the case of an accident involving a bicycle the threat of serious or fatal injury is mostly to the bicycle rider. Operating a motor vehicle recklessly poses a much greater risk to others than a bicycle.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

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....


In some cases, yes, it keeps people known for doing that off the road. A friend's brother recently got a DUI, and drives drunk quite often. He does not drive now because they took his license away. There is nothing else stopping him, other than a lack of a license. So just because some people out there will still drive without a license, doesn't mean requiring a license does NOTHING.

Then once you get a DUI, and drive again, without a license, you go to jail. It's not a deterrent to all, but it is to most.


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.


I don't know if that's true. Look at concealed carry laws. Not all of them share reciprocity with other states. Meaning, just because you can legally conceal carry in one state does NOT mean other states HAVE to let you do the same.


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.



Your right, free citizens should not have to pay for their rights. A car is not a right. Therefore that doesn't apply.


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.


A horse is the old school equivalent of a car with artificial intelligence. A horse, by nature, does not run into things. Back when cavalry made charges into the enemy line they had to TRAIN the horses to run through/into them. A normal horse will do everything in its power to AVOID collision with something. The same can not be said for a car. It is mindless. Not to mention I don't think any horses or wagons were doing 65 miles an hour within a few feet of other people doing the same.

The constitution says NOTHING about SPEEDY travel, or CONVENIENT travel. Just travel. How can your rights be infringed upon, when you have the exact same rights now (in this specific circumstance, not in general) as the people that designed them? They wanted you to travel freely, which you still can. Via bike, train, walking, bus, etc. Your movement has not been restricted, therefore your rights have not been violated.

All that being said, I don't agree with the current way the license system works. You should not have to renew your license. You should not have to pay for it. But you should have to have one to drive a car.

I for get who said it, but it was something along the lines of "my freedom to swing my fist ends when it meets your face" or something along those lines. In the same respect, I don't have the right to put a blindfold on and run around the streets shadowboxing, because I am endangering other peoples well being. You do not have the right to endanger others well being, so you should prove you can drive before being able to.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Primordial
 


Granted. Although so say it poses less of a hazard to motorist I think is an understatement. A bicyclist not abiding by the rules of the road can cause a horrific accident just as easily. Overall I enjoyed the discussion. As you have mentioned, we might have come to the point where we just agree to disagree. Thank you.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

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.


Those "drunks" and "convicted felons" boogie-men you fear.. are fellow American citizens.. who would join you in a second in a fight against "the man".

Divide & conquer.

So called "drunks" and "convicted felons" are not exactly examples of responsible law abiding citizens, a large number don't give a loaf.. not having a drivers license is "chicken spackle", chump change, or "local time".

They drive anyway, no insurance, no license, drunk, stoned, on PCP, crack, 'yay-yo', 'baby doll', in the 'k-hole'.. and get away with it, sometimes for years. Losing a car and 15 days in county every now and then is just the cost of living a not give a crap lifestyle. These folks have effed up so many times in so many ways, they have obamao "hope" (fake) of qualifying for a license anytime soon.. "Department of Motor vehicles" isn't in their vocabulary.

Of course there are some more responsible folks who one day envision themselves having a valid license, they follow the rules.. but what's the ratio?.. is there "data" on whether or not license suspension / revocation matters much?..

Keep in mind there are literally millions of "illegal aliens" in So Cal.. none legally allowed a license to drive.. yet golly gee whiz, many drive anyway.

Govt agents, cops, now have literally a million potential vehicles to impound & auction.. or collect "vehicle release" and "impound fees".. which is why "DUI" check points have morphed into nazified "Sobriety, drivers license and safety check point".

Another added bonus to the scam: the city (govt) runs the tow yard too!!.. a govt cop hands your car over to a govt tow truck driver, s/he drives to a govt lot. In 30 or so day the govt will sell your car and keep the money, OR.. you can pay the police (govt) a "vehicle release fee".. before you get that.. all parking violations / fees must be paid to DMV.

After paying the govt for outstanding tickets & a release, you get to pay the govt tow yard.. hundreds for some HS drop out goon to steal your car, and hundreds more because your POS took up precious govt owned parking @ $79 per day / $250 to be towed 2 miles.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Every time you argue this, and keep using the word "drive" shows you are totally not getting this simple concept.

Driving does NOT mean getting behind the wheel of a car per se. It means getting behind the wheel for commercial purposes.

In the law, the word travel is used to denote getting behind the wheel for personal reasons, rather than commercial.

Once you understand this distinction between the terms, the actual meaning of the law will finally become apparent to you.

Here is the problem = Thinking that "driving" in legal terms encompasses all automobile traveling. Which it doesn't, as we have shown many many times with actual references from actual law books.

This is where the term LEGAL LOOPHOLE comes from.
It's a trick of wording, a matter of semantics. 100%

Of course Driving isn't a Right. It's Regulated.
But Traveling is a Right. And that includes all modes of transportation, including automobiles.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join