Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

FHP announces daytime driver license, vehicle inspection checkpoints

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
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as Black's and insists that the only acceptable definition is found in editions of said dictionary that have long been superseded (e.g. Black's 2nd Edition, 1910).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 false.

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 highways.";
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 either.

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.




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Having the right to travel does not mean that you have the right to drive unregulated. As noted in my above post, courts have ruled that the "notion of right to travel remains wholly separate from the right or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways" 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."

Charlie Sprinkle certainly spins a good yarn. I wouldn't, however, base any legal argument against the requirement for a driver's licence on anything he has to say.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


I was wondering what you mean when you say you don't need a license to travel? You do need one to operate a motor vehicle right? I live in Tampa



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t


Without the inspections that once were the norm, it is now on the officers patrolling to "catch" these violators, whereas before, a lot were caught (and kept off the road presumptively) when the state inspections were still around.



What prey-tell are they violating? There has to be a law, rule, regulation, agreement, contract, axiom, concept, precept, principle or SOMETHING in order for it to be violated, no?

What's next?.....doling out tickets for those of us who sunbathe on Wednesdays in the months that contains "U".... seeing there's no law against that either!


I hear what you're saying though....and I'm not against you at all. But I tell ya, I would give my eye tooth to be a lawyer representing any motorist who gets cited for an injunction that doesn't exist though.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Gothar
 


The big bad scary brown men are traveling through all the back roads in Florida right now with enriched uranium ready to blow you up because they hate your freedoms!


Let's just call it what it really is, and not a bunch of hypothetical events.

By the way: All it takes to have your vehicle searched is an expired DL or no insurance. I was stopped one night heading N. on US 27 about to turn onto I-4. I had not the $ to renew my insurance at the time, and it expired. If you have GEICO it stands for Government Employed Insurance Company, and they will report you to the police if you lack their insurance.

He runs my tag, seeing I have no insurance, then asks to search my vehicle. I am 26 white guy driving a 2008 Scion tC. I was not intoxicated, or doing any drugs. However, I refused the search and he said "OK, sit tight." and 15 minutes later, a K-9 unit shows up with 3 other patrol cars. They pretty much strongarm me into a search saying I can submit to it or go downtown.

A question of whether these checkpoints are legal or not are moot at this point. We now know they do not give a rat's ass about legalities, and the constitution. We need to disrupt these events similarly how people are with the TSA screens at airports, but how?

Our representatives will not listen to us, so what else can we do?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Tracid
 


In order to operate (drive) a motor vehicle on Florida roads/highways legally, yes you are required to be licensed to do so (with a few varying circumstances). Although, there are plenty of people that still operate vehicles that aren't licensed or driving on a suspended and even revoked license.

Therein these types of inspections can nab these types of offenders (among others).



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf10
 


Just watched your video Rejecting Authority At Police State Checkpoint and I can not believe the comments people are posting there.

One person posted: "He is and idiot for repeating the same question over and over and over and over and over and not just listening to the officer. people like that should be killed for being such assholes. i would have pulled him out of the car for disorderly"

KILLED!?

...
edit on 7-2-2013 by Kevinquisitor because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


IF someone was operating a vehicle that was unsafe (according to the FL statutes) then that is the violation. Because there are no longer required state inspections the ability to effectively police said violations are limited to a cops to traffic ratio. How many violators skate by everyday?

Here's an example. The Guy in front of you has his tailgate duct taped to his bed and it falls off bounces off the road and into your windshield...had there been an inspection checkpoint to catch it...he may be more inclined to have it repaired.
edit on 2/7/2013 by UberL33t because: tags



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tracid
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


I was wondering what you mean when you say you don't need a license to travel? You do need one to operate a motor vehicle right? I live in Tampa

yes, you need a license for vehicles. you do not need them for automobiles.

the word "vehicle" assumes that the "driver" is being paid.

the word "automobile" assumes that the person is "traveling" non-commercially.

if you don't believe me, go look at the youtube video i posted on the subject. that's how it plays out in court.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by erwalker
 



"driver" as "1. A person who steers and propels a vehicle.

good. now look up the definition of "person" AND "vehicle"

a "person" is a fictitious legal entity, NOT a human being.

a "vehicle" is, by definition, commercial.


edit on 7-2-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
these are direct quotes from the motor vehicle act.


"driver" means a person driving or in charge of a vehicle and includes the operator of a motor vehicle;

notice the use of person.


"person" includes a body corporate or politic, and party;



"motor vehicle" means a vehicle, as herein defined, which is propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power

"as herein defined" means that if you submit an application, the definition of "vehicle" is changed to the above.


64 Subject to Section 65 and subsection (6) of Section 75, no person shall operate any motor vehicle upon a highway in the Province unless such person has a valid driver's license under the provisions of this Act for the type or class of vehicle being driven. R.S., c. 293, s. 64.

sorry, but i'm not a "person" i'm a human being.

all of these statutes and acts apply to "persons" NOT "human beings"



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
its getting us ready for martial law. 20yrs ago they said they were to catch drunk drivers...now they look for reasons to issue tickets!

whats next? check points for pedestrians? random house searches?

20yrs ago they said seatbelt laws would only be enforced if you were pulled over for another reason, now the can do it if they see you arent wearing one.

they slowly take away our rights!



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
its getting us ready for martial law. 20yrs ago they said they were to catch drunk drivers...now they look for reasons to issue tickets!

whats next? check points for pedestrians? random house searches?

20yrs ago they said seatbelt laws would only be enforced if you were pulled over for another reason, now the can do it if they see you arent wearing one.

they slowly take away our rights!



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kevinquisitor
 


training the people. thats all. conditioning the people to accept this as normal.

if 1 in 3 is really driving without a license, no insurance, etc.

why do they not streamline the data from their Motor Vehicle Dept to the Highway patrol cars on board laptops so that the officers on duty can look up correct data on a suspect?

no need for these draconian, wheres your papers, what are you doing traveling on this road totalitarian communist actions.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



a "person" is a fictitious legal entity, NOT a human being.

From Black's Law, 9th Edition (2009) page 1257:
person. (13c) 1. A human being. - Also termed natural person


a "vehicle" is, by definition, commercial.

From Black's Law, 9th Edition (2009) page 1693:
vehicle (vee-a-kǝl), n. 1. An instrument of transportation or conveyance. 2. Any conveyance used in transporting passengers or things by land, water, or air.

Funny, no mention of commercial in the definition. If you can, please cite the legal source that a vehicle is always a commercial entity


these are direct quotes from the motor vehicle act.

From which motor vehicle act? There are many motor vehicle acts and state/provincial vehicle codes.


notice the use of person.


sorry, but i'm not a "person" i'm a human being.

all of these statutes and acts apply to "persons" NOT "human beings"

Refer to the definition of person above.

Your arguments have been very weak so far and you did nothing to counter the court rulings I cited.

No doubt this is the result of an inability to find any "freeman" site that you can cut and paste an effective counter-argument, such as a US Supreme Court decision that invalidates them.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf10
 


That guy had some b@lls which is what it takes to keep your individual freedom.


Although, I wonder if it would have gone down the same way had it been a hispanic male (assuming he wasn't).
edit on 7-2-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by erwalker
 

the definition of "person" i quoted is directly found in the motor vehicle act, not black's law dictionary.

here ya go nslegislature.ca...

why do you think in the motor vehicle act they specifically change the definition of "vehicle"?

i know all the way up to edition 7 "person" is defined as a legal entity. i haven't checked the 8th.

ETA:


The 5th edition of "BLD" was the last "BLD" edition to contain case-decisional law or legal precedent. All editions after the 5the edition - the 6th, 7th, 8th, and now 9th, do not contain case-decisional law or legal precedent. Judges do not use the 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th edition of "BLD" so why should you? Use what the judges use!


black's law dictionary 5th edition states that "person" in general usage means human being, HOWEVER, in statues it means a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, etc.
www.mindserpent.com...

the definition of "corporation" lists person as one of the meanings.

in the end, the proof is in the pudding, and i have met several "freemen" who do not pay income taxes, don't have driver's licenses, and don't fall under the jurisdiction of statutes and acts not contained either within common law, or the constitution.
edit on 7-2-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
This is an important read for the anti gun group. Why? Everything that's happening is connected. I BELIEVE it started with the terrorist attack on September 11 2001, many small to moderate changes started shortly afterword "for our safety",but really it was slowly stripping us of our rights and liberties.
If you had a time machine and were able to go back to prior that date, you would think you lived in another world, to some extent you do. I just don't want to think what the USA will be like in 5-7 more years at this rate. After we are taken back to sticks and stones to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government, well, it will make getting our freedoms back very difficult to say the least.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by erwalker
 

the definition of "person" i quoted is directly found in the motor vehicle act, not black's law dictionary.

here ya go nslegislature.ca...

You do realize that the motor vehicle act you keep referring to is the Nova Scotia Motor Vehicle Act and has no bearing outside of Nova Scotia.

That said, the definition of "person" found in it does not say that a person is only "a body corporate or politic, and party". It is saying that in addition to being a human being, the word also includes "a body corporate or politic, and party". This does not mean that you are not covered by any statute that uses the term "person".


why do you think in the motor vehicle act they specifically change the definition of "vehicle"?

i know all the way up to edition 7 "person" is defined as a legal entity. i haven't checked the 8th.
edit on 7-2-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

Did you happen to notice that the Black's Law definition covered vehicles "transporting passengers or things by land, water, or air" and not just by land?

The NS Motor Vehicle Act is only concerned with land transportation, so they further define a vehicle as "every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, excepting a motorized wheelchair and devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks."

So as used in this Act, a vehicle can include a horse-drawn wagon but not a bicycle or a train. "Motor vehicle" further defines a specific type of vehicle.

This is so a you know that a when statute in this act that says it applies to motor vehicles, it doesn't apply to such things as horse-drawn wagons, bicycles, etc. unless they too are mentioned in the statute.
It isn't that hard to understand unless you are being purposely obtuse.


black's law dictionary 5th edition states that "person" in general usage means human being, HOWEVER, in statues it means a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, etc.
www.mindserpent.com...


I notice that you cleverly drop a very important word from the definition of a "person". The definition you link to actually says "in general usage a human being (i.e. natural person) though by statute term MAY include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, ..."
The use of the word "may" does not exclude "human being" as a meaning of "person" in a statute.

By the way, an unattributed quote carries no weight. For all I or anyone else knows, you are making things up.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by erwalker
 



You do realize that the motor vehicle act you keep referring to is the Nova Scotia Motor Vehicle Act and has no bearing outside of Nova Scotia.

really? cuz there's this in the definitions:


"state" means any state in the United States of America and includes the District of Columbia;


you're the one making things up
i thought we might have a decent discussion on the subject of law, but it seems you are not interested in what is true.

btw: black's law dictionary stated that "person" in the general use (every day language) means human being, but that in statutes it has a different meaning altogether. i give evidence of this, see the definition of "person" in the MVA.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join