Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses

what all of us fail to see is our right to travel is being infringed upon , that is taken away by the use of taxes use or fines and fees, now we have one person that thought of a bill that would say i'll show you well he did!
Not only do we not know the law, we can not agree about the law, and therefor get what we get more rules and regulations to keep us in line and taxed, yes the privilege to drive is a right, what makes it law is the tax,the fines, fees the department of commerce and department of public safety decide to charge us, thus the laws and rules of the road now that is out of the way, i will be back.

When you sign specific contracts, and there are literally dozens of them, often times these contracts will put you under the Uniform Commercial Code.

By signing these contracts, you are obligated to act accordingly, because you agreed to it (knowingly or unknowingly).

If you do not sign these contracts (or nullify them through correct legal means), you are not obligated to the restrictions set therein.

This is extremely simple to understand if you keep reading the laws and realize it is set up to use common words against us. "Everything you say can be used against you in a court of law". It's so true.

In normal people life, a word can mean X.
But in Law, the definitions of terminology is TOTALLY different, and that word we think is "X" is actually "Y" as defined in the Legal literature.

Originally posted by James1982
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.

Each state has their own reciprocity in this regard. There have been attempts by Congress and the Senate to settle this issue as it does contradict the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Albeit a bit trickier than say marriage laws, the law needs to be applied equally and fairly. When I applied the clause in my response, it was directed at licensing, not the deeper and mudded subject of concealed carry permits.

But in terms of a driver's license, that full faith and credit would apply along with the interstate commerce clause. If Georgia were to actually pass this bill and drivers no longer held a license granted by the state to drive, just as states now accept out of state licenses, they would allow drivers from Georgia to be without.

Oversimplified and it would lead to most likely a supreme court case if it ever came to it though.

Originally posted by zcflint05
I'm curious where it states in the constitution that we have a "right" to drive.

Hell, I live in the most conservative state in the union and they even call it the "driving privlidge".

Jean Paul Zodeaux clarifies that incorrect assumption here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please refer to the ninth amendment:

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


'what they call it" vs. what "it is" are two very different things. The right to travel freely is a basic human freedom, anything else is slavery.

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by GovtFlu
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"

No they wouldn't.

Don't be absurd.

As preposterous, illogical and fantastical as your comments may be, I really need to query you on the assertion that ''drunkards'' and ''criminals'' would in any way fight against ''the man''.


We really need to let logic and rationality trump some of these fantastical comments and thoughts on this thread.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Ok here is what you are not understanding.

Standard English and Legal Terminology are DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.

A word in English does NOT equal a word in legal terminology.

They are different languages with different meanings.

Would you go to China and tell them they speak their language wrong because in English those sounds mean something else? No, you would not do that.
This is the same concept.

In a courtroom we speak a "different language" - legal terminology. It is defined and translated into "Standard English" in the legal literature.

The only way to understand the law is to study it and learn the unique definitions to these terms. It can be difficult because the words we use everyday do not apply here.

This is simple:


If requiring a licence to drive a car/fly a plane is unconstitutional and unlawful, then please provide evidence of somebody successfully being able to drive the roads on these grounds.

This is hardly a new idea or theory.


The US has 150m+ drivers, let's see you successfully arguing against the current procedure, based upon the laws that you are aware of.


Now... Are you going to put your money where your mouth is ?

since my last post quickly gathered 3 stars... I make a lengthy quote from that same thread of Jean Paul's

What I am trying to communicate in this thread is that "license" is a legal term that describes the grant of privilege for an action that would otherwise be criminal. The need to build roads, bridges and highways is a genuine need with the advent of automobiles, and arguably a need best met by government construction. However, the people need not surrender their fundamental right to travel as they see fit just because government has accepted the task of building roads and bridges. The shared use of these roads and bridges does not in any way diminish the rights of individuals. Nor does not having a licensing and registration scheme for automobiles prevent government from enforcing traffic laws that either protect the rights of individuals, or offer a remedy in the event of a grievance due to some person denying or disparaging a persons right/s.

License and registrations schemes make it easier for government to control people, but it does not enable them to enforce actual laws. Governments, being tools of the people, have the right to enforce actual law, and actual law is that collective organization of the right to self defense. All people everywhere have the right to self defense. It follows then that people have the right to collectively come together and form a government to act towards that same end. A reckless driver is a person who is disregarding the right of others self defense, and there need be no licensing and registration schemes in order to enforce laws that prohibit reckless driving. People do not have the right to drive recklessly. They do, however, have the right to drive.

I have read many of the "freeman" posts in this site, and in this thread. While I do not disagree at all with the "freeman" movement in principle and in general, I am not inclined to couch my language in terms of travel, as opposed to what legislatures have defined "driving" to be. It is the priest class lawyer set who have endeavored, through legalese, to redefine words, and then somehow attribute mystical power to these words that when used after their redefining of them somehow make people liable to the bogus legislation that otherwise they would not be liable to. The term "driving" is at least as old as 1690, in the context "excursion by vehicle", and predates licensing schemes of automobiles by several centuries. Driving means now, what it meant more than 300 years ago. No artful language acting under color of law will change that, and the mystical incantations of priest class lawyers are powerless among the rational minds.

I'd also like to link to the FULL TEXT of the Act in question:

www1.legis.ga.gov...

11 LC 34 2781
House Bill 7
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Travel Act."

as well as add a link to this website:


www.apfn.org...

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

freedom,

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

If requiring a licence to drive a car/fly a plane is unconstitutional and unlawful,

Again, "driving" is a commercial activity and thus can be taxed.

You do not have a right to "drive".

We have gone over this for pages and pages. And you still refuse to address this.

Read my post above. Address it.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

Ok here is what you are not understanding.

Standard English and Legal Terminology are DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.

A word in English does NOT equal a word in legal terminology.

They are different languages with different meanings.

In a courtroom we speak a "different language" - legal terminology. It is defined and translated into "Standard English" in the legal literature.

The only way to understand the law is to study it and learn the unique definitions to these terms. It can be difficult because the words we use everyday do not apply here.

Don't tell me that all the terminology is hinging on a "secret lawyer book" that has all of their oh-so-clever words in them?

They must be hiding the REAL legal dictionaries right behind Satan's thrown, huh?


What magical properties of this fantastical language allow you to selectively interchange definitions from one document to another when terms are explicitly stated and defined within?

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

If requiring a licence to drive a car/fly a plane is unconstitutional and unlawful,

Again, "driving" is a commercial activity and thus can be taxed.

You do not have a right to "drive".

We have gone over this for pages and pages. And you still refuse to address this.

Read my post above. Address it.

Driving is not a commercial activity.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by James1982
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.

Each state has their own reciprocity in this regard. There have been attempts by Congress and the Senate to settle this issue as it does contradict the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Albeit a bit trickier than say marriage laws, the law needs to be applied equally and fairly. When I applied the clause in my response, it was directed at licensing, not the deeper and mudded subject of concealed carry permits.

But in terms of a driver's license, that full faith and credit would apply along with the interstate commerce clause. If Georgia were to actually pass this bill and drivers no longer held a license granted by the state to drive, just as states now accept out of state licenses, they would allow drivers from Georgia to be without.

Oversimplified and it would lead to most likely a supreme court case if it ever came to it though.

I see where your coming from, thanks for the clarification. I'm not incredibly law-savvy (except when it comes to firearms heh) so I just made the wrong conclusion that states didn't have to recognize the laws of other states. Now I know!

"Driving" legally means using the public road for profit.

The people paid for that road with public funds.

Therefore the people have the right to levy taxation upon commercial interests whom use the public property for profit.

This is super simple and basic.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
"Driving" legally means using the public road for profit.

The people paid for that road with public funds.

Therefore the people have the right to levy taxation upon commercial interests whom use the public property for profit.

This is super simple and basic.

Show everyone where you are getting your definitions from, why don't you.

It looks as though you are just pulling them out of you ass (i.e random internet links).

Are these links the same ones lawyers and judges use?

Originally posted by RestingInPieces


Driving is not a commercial activity.

"Driver: One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

What does employed mean?

A politician attention whore? In America? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Just one more clown in the circus. Politicians are lower than most folks we keep locked up in prison. Wake up, people.

Originally posted by RestingInPieces

Originally posted by muzzleflash
"Driving" legally means using the public road for profit.

The people paid for that road with public funds.

Therefore the people have the right to levy taxation upon commercial interests whom use the public property for profit.

This is super simple and basic.

Show everyone where you are getting your definitions from, why don't you.

It looks as though you are just pulling them out of you ass (i.e random internet links).

Are these links the same ones lawyers and judges use?

Lawyers and Judges use Legal Dictionaries?
What do YOU think they use? Opinions? Cmon.

Ever heard of a Library? Why don't you go look it up yourself?

I have.
Here is a FUN link, PLZ READ

As far as the legal wording of things goes, I just checked my wallet and it indeed does say "Drivers License"

Isn't a drivers license a legal "document" as it were, and would have been designed by those in knowing of the law? Meaning, why would they put "Drivers License" on it, and not "Travel License" if the word "driving" is strictly for commercial purposes? Does this mean I can drive a semi without an actual CDL? Why would there be a distinction made between a CDL and regular DL, if as you say a regular drivers license is already a commercial drivers license? Maybe I'm confused on what is being said, a little clarification would be nice.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by RestingInPieces


Driving is not a commercial activity.

"Driver: One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

What does employed mean?

I don't know what it means in that CONTEXT, because it doesn't EXPLICITLY DEFINE IT.

However, in the CONTEXT of ACQUIRING A DRIVER'S LICENSE IN FLORIDA:

“Drive” means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic.

Ok, so I'll just let you READ DEEPLY into that and come up a stupid explanation. I suppose with your twisted logic, everything in that definition screams commercial (since it's all commercial from the beginning).

CDL's are for really big vehicles and limos.

It's not what it sounds like, it's not the "commerce" licence.

The proof is that Taxis can use a non-commercial licence to "drive" and make money, which is actually commerce. Thus "Driver" is the key term here.

"Non-CDL" means it's not the truck/limo licence.

It's a trick of wording. Both are commerce taxes/regulations.