reply to post by YouSir
That is utter nonsense.
The claim that the legal definition of "drive" is "to drive a commercial vehicle" has problems with it, not the least that you can't use the
word you are attempting to define to define itself.
Claiming that "drive" only means " operate a commercial vehicle" invariably relies on the idea that the only legal definition of a word is that
found in a law dictionary such as Black's and insists that the only acceptable definition is found in editions of said dictionary that have long been
superseded (e.g. Black's 2nd Edition, 1910).
More recent editions of Black's, the 9th Edition (2009) for example, define "driving" as "the act of directing the course of something, such as an
automobile or a herd of animals" and "driver" as "1. A person who steers and propels a vehicle. 2. A person who herds animals; a drover." No
mention of commercial activity.
All this is beside the point as a definition found in a law dictionary does not override a definition found in a statute such as those found in
California Vehicle Code sections 100-680 or other State vehicle codes.
Your claim that courts have not addressed the whole "I'm not operating a commercial vehicle so I don't need a driver's licence" argument is
In State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304, an appeal of a conviction for driving a private non-commercial motor vehicle without a driver's
licence, the Montana Supreme Court dealt with many of the common arguments used by people such as Skurdal to claim a driver's licence is not needed
and regulation of private non-commercial motor vehicle use is unconstitutional, including:
1. The driver's licence requirement
a) encroachment of his absolute rights
b) Right to freedom of travel
c) right to operate a motor vehicle
2. Liberty interests
a) "Free man status"
b) private automobile, noncommercial use
In the Court's decision it ruled the following:
1. it was not "unconstitutional for the state to require him to procure a driver's license before OPERATING a motor vehicle on the public
2. the "notion of right to travel remains wholly separate from the right or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways in
Montana", citing City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987), 737 P.2d 981, 983, and "Whether it is termed a right or a privilege, one's ability to travel
on public highways is always subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its police power."; and
3. Skurdal's private automobile non-commercial use argument was baseless in Montana and there was NO LAW in any other jurisdiction to support it
The Montana Supreme Court concluded with "...the issues herein raised are now settled, and any further appeal of them in this Court will be deemed
frivolous." This was due to the fact that Skurdal had been before the same court appealing a similar conviction on the same grounds two years
earlier, in City of Billings v. Skurdal (1986).
The following court cases all cited City of Billings v. Skurdal (1986) and/or State v. Skurdal (1988) in rejecting appeals of convictions for one or
more of driving w/o a driver's licence, operating a motor vehicle w/o liability insurance, not wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle,
operating an unregistered motor vehicle, and DWI:
1. New Mexico v. Armijo (1987, NM);
2. State v. Deitchler (1991, MT);
3. Jess v. State Dept. of Justice (1992, MT);
4. State v. Folda (1994, MT);
5. State v. Schaible (1994, MT);
6. Tennessee v. Booher (1997, TN);
7. State v. Wilson (1998, MT);
8. City of Billings v Beckman (2002, MT); and
9. Idaho v. Wilder (2003, ID).
None have been appealed to the US Supreme Court.