Of even more importance, did the cop have his hat on?
Printable View
No. That is yet another bone headed idea peddled by some clueless fringe web sites. Driving or operating a vehicle, whether for commercial purposes or simply for pleasure is regarded as a privilege and not a right. The term “driving” is not limited to commercial purposes. Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed., defines “driving” as “The act of directing the course of something, such as an automobile or a herd of animals.” Note the definition has a broad scope — there is no limitation to just directing an automobile for commercial purposes. All operation of an automobile on the roads constitutes “driving” under that definition so your attempt to limit it would fail.
Every state requires that you obtain a license in order to be able to operate your vehicle on the public roadways and to have that vehicle properly titled, registered, and insured. You will lose in court if you try to argue that the laws only require licensing and registration for commercial activity. You may even get sanctioned by the court for making a frivolous argument as this is so clearly established in the law that it really isn’t contestable.
Nor is it the case that licensing laws violate your constitutional right to travel. When you look the cases in which the specific issue was whether the “right to travel” is violated by licensing laws, the uniform opinion of the courts is that they do not. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 7th Circuit said just a few years ago the following:
But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there is no “fundamental right to drive” and affirming dismissal of complaint based on state's refusal to renew citizen's driver's license); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional violation where valid Idaho law required driver's license, and plaintiff was detained for not having one). Without vehicle licenses, Dean is denied only “a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself,” see Miller, 176 F.3d at 1204, and this does not impermissibly burden his right to travel. Id.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing Dean's case is AFFIRMED.
Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007).
Note that the decision cites several other federal appeals court opinions that say the same thing: while you have a right to travel, there is no fundamental right to travel by car and state licensing laws for traveling by car do not violate your constitutional rights. Because of these and other appellate court decisions that all confirm that same thing you will lose if you try to make the argument that driver’s license laws illegally infringe your right to travel. It’s a loser argument, just like the argument that driver’s licenses are only needed for commercial purposes is a loser argument.
The web sites that promote these views that driver’s licenses are not required use illogical argument and bad legal analysis to support their claims, often using quotes from cases that are not at all on point while ignoring completely the cases that are directly on point. They may do a good job convincing those who are clueless on the law, but to anyone who has done any real research in the area it is clear just how silly their arguments are.
hmmm, I guess the folks. Know including myself are exempt and special. Ive not had a license since 2010 and had not paid taxes on my traveling vehicles either.
This is one of MANY illegal stops. Now, I know what's on that travelers papers. The police man was smart to just let him go. You see, the problem with web sites and folks that Z THINK they know their rights DONT. I guess this video is off one of those web sites y'all are talking about WAKE UP. I'm done
Folks look up illegal traffic stops and get educated. Learn the constitution and gain your power back
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=opS9iCf7uaI
If that WAS a cop, he was stupid, ignorant, and unsafe and doesn't deserve to be. Personally, I think this video was a set-up and not a real cop at all. If he was a real cop, then he had no real interest in enforcing the traffic law because he could have compelled the driver to provide a license and registration. It nmay have been an investigator or something (with poor officer safety) who simply wanted to get a glimpse of the driver and not concerned about traffic enforcement.
Oh, and if you truly believe this crap you spout, get stopped, pull all of this sovereign citizen crud, and fight the good fight and prevail. No one has before, so I'm not holding my breath.
If that was a real cop I'll buy lunch for everybody. So many things not "cop like" there it isn't funny
now, I have seen videos where these numbskulls have been allowed to drive away even though they were violating several laws. Why would a cop do it? It's hard to say. Maybe their superiors don't want the hassle of dealing with the sovereign idiots. Realistically driving without a license or registration itself is not a dangerous act. Maybe these sovereign idiots have figured out which cops cave in to the ramblings they espouse. I really don't know. A cop is not mandated to ticket or arrest.
When i I have some time I'll post some videos of these where the cops simply got tired of bullshit and pulled the sovereign fool traveling in his private car, not in commerce and tased and arrested them. It's usually quite humorous.
That was my first thought. But, then, I realized that I have seen more than a few yo-yos who can get a badge in small towns somewhere that anything MIGHT be possible. But, nothing about this guy's approach or contact said "cop." Nothing.
A lot of it may be a lack of knowledge. Younger cops who don't know how to deal with someone who so overtly fronts them off may enter vapor lock or OVER react. Older ones, they may overreact, or just decide that going for coffee or lunch is a better use of their time. Who knows?Quote:
now, I have seen videos where these numbskulls have been allowed to drive away even though they were violating several laws. Why would a cop do it? It's hard to say. Maybe their superiors don't want the hassle of dealing with the sovereign idiots.
Though, nowadays with all the stuff in the media, I would not be surprised if more cops turn a blind eye to lesser offenses so as to avoid being the latest headline.
Seen a few. :)Quote:
When i I have some time I'll post some videos of these where the cops simply got tired of bullshit and pulled the sovereign fool traveling in his private car, not in commerce and tased and arrested them. It's usually quite humorous.
I've always been fond of through-the-window take downs ... well, at least watching them.
Here is why they will just walk away. When you enter a CONTRACT between the officer and your self you are AGREEING to the TERMS. Let's just say that works both ways. I won't post too much info publicly because believe it or not I RESPECT our Peace Officers. I just do not like the SYSTEM and how they mis lead WE THE PEOPLE. If you care to PM me I will share with you more info
One of your RIGHTS are to plead the 5th and say nothing. This guy and many others are just utilizing their RIGHTS
That is complete and utter BS. That you are still here espousing it after having been shown that these beliefs are BS shows that you are one of those people. That or a troll. Maybe both.
The Fifth Amendment applies to incriminating statements. Identifying yourself during a traffic stop is not included.