Yeah you should have seen it, everyone claimed to be laughing at me and I stuck it out to prove them all wrong and showed them proof that are the fools, who else wants to play I am destroyer of worlds
I feel like if this were true and were the case then there would be a lot more buzz about it then a single forum post on kaw....I understand I can google it, but I can google just about anything I want and have hundreds of things pop up
Even if this were true, if you expect to be able to drive without a licence you're a fool. If you lose your licence, you're being punished for breaking the law one way or another. Anything can be confiscated, even if you have it legally, if it is used inappropriately or illegally. For example your right to drive. If you speed for example, you'll be punished by losing your right to drive.
So we've gone from op saying " you dont need a license to drive" to he/she/it stating "the usa govt is privately owned by someone" ? Can you just not anymore. Make liek a bee and buzz off plez
If you are waiting for the mainstream media to tell you anything about the truth, hold your breath, this argument has been going on for 100 years you can even see from the court cases and every time they continue to rule no license is required to exercise liberty,
OK so you believe that the drivers license is a license to engage in criminal activity and getting the license proves your intent to break the law? Am I clear? Correct me if I'm wrong
To summarise: OP is quoting in full original text that can be found on several, aged, websites without attribution. No links to sources have been provided. Interesting when I try to look up the citations referred I only see the same crackpot websites. Luckily for all concerned it seems that the myth has already been debunked at length and is available to read online: http://pseudolaw.com/right-to-travel-united-states *BOOM* Now go to bed and stop being silly.
anyone else that wants to learn how to fact check, feel free to read the portion of the decision of Thompson v.Smith that comes AFTER where the person who fabricated this myth cuts it off.
You missed the several times I've linked to Cornell.edu proving a "motor vehicle" is defined in the United States code as being used for commerce, and that is what the department of motor vehicle is licensing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/31 (6)Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. (10)Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
going to repeat this; for the sake of thoroughness and because i have nothing to do atm: you are citing "definitions" that only apply to the specific law you are grabbing that from. you may as well be saying "argle bargyle snarf snarf". (a)Definitions.—In this chapter, the following definitions apply: (1)Aircraft.— The term “aircraft” means a civil, military, or public contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, fly, or travel in the air. (2)Aviation quality.— The term “aviation quality”, with respect to a part of an aircraft or space vehicle, means the quality of having been manufactured, constructed, produced, maintained, repaired, overhauled, rebuilt, reconditioned, or restored in conformity with applicable standards specified by law (including applicable regulations). (3)Destructive substance.— The term “destructive substance” means an explosive substance, flammable material, infernal machine, or other chemical, mechanical, or radioactive device or matter of a combustible, contaminative, corrosive, or explosive nature. (4)In flight.—The term “in flight” means— (A) any time from the moment at which all the external doors of an aircraft are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation; and (B) in the case of a forced landing, until competent authorities take over the responsibility for the aircraft and the persons and property on board. (5)In service.—The term “in service” means— (A) any time from the beginning of preflight preparation of an aircraft by ground personnel or by the crew for a specific flight until 24 hours after any landing; and (B) in any event includes the entire period during which the aircraft is in flight. (6)Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. (7)Part.— The term “part” means a frame, assembly, component, appliance, engine, propeller, material, part, spare part, piece, section, or related integral or auxiliary equipment. (8)Space vehicle.— The term “space vehicle” means a man-made device, either manned or unmanned, designed for operation beyond the Earth’s atmosphere. (9)State.— The term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. (10)Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. (b)Terms Defined in Other Law.— In this chapter, the terms “aircraft engine”, “air navigation facility”, “appliance”, “civil aircraft”, “foreign air commerce”, “interstate air commerce”, “landing area”, “overseas air commerce”, “propeller”, “spare part”, and “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” have the meanings given those terms in sections 40102(a) and 46501 of title 49. (Added July 14, 1956, ch. 595, § 1, 70 Stat. 538; amended Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §§ 1010, 2013(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2141, 2187; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7015, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4395; Pub. L. 103–272, § 5(e)(1), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1373; Pub. L. 106–181, title V, § 506(b), Apr. 5, 2000, 114 Stat. 136.)
http://pseudolaw.com/right-to-travel-united-states "I'm afraid the State and its courts dictate how things are viewed under its law. You don't get to decide what's considered driving or a motor vehicle, they do. You can't simply switch out a few words to avoid responsibility. If you're in territory controlled by the US and/or a State then its laws may be applied to you and you have no lawful recourse"
And which court decided that? None ok and that is what site is that, that's not pacer.gov or other sites that actually have court cases like http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ you make some take website to say whatever and expect people to believe everything on the web, show me something from the legislature that defines "driving" in any transportation code
The only thing we have a right to is life... Thank your mom. Anything else you do get you should be grateful for. Automobiles a) cause death b) pollute c) give you freedom. Those three factors equal you needing to have a license. Same with flight and equally it should be the same for watercraft. End of story.
And what does your state define as driving, keep looking your so close, not some random BS website boogus article written by someone profiting from fraud
You don't create the law the legislature does, show me the definition of driving defined by any legislature within first driving code in your state
Yeah it's all there, title 18 is the criminal code, try the definitions in title 42 look up driving, motor vehicle, transportation
No legislature anywhere had defined "driving" if they do is game over and they have 300 million people paying them $40 for nothing they use