A question on my own run-in with a SovCit

[Wake Up! Productions]

A license, therefore, implying a privilege, cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right, free and open to all, as is the right of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge, and without toll, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [38]

[38] The City of Chicago v. Lorin C. Collins, Jr. et. al., 175 Ill 445 (October 24, 1898) at pp., 456-457. The Court affirmed the illegality of the Chicago "Wheel Tax" ordinance.

I think this Yahoo page answers the question from the year 1898:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bic ... sages/9844

Lately, I've heard a few people say bicyclists don't pay taxes for the roads and don't have licenses to use the road. So.....

I've been searching the topic of driver licenses with the words "1908 driver license first" and found things that can prove helpful in understanding why motorists are required to have driver licenses and other road users aren't required to have driver licenses.

According to one website I looked at:
"For example, in 1898 the city of Chicago had in force a law which required that the owners of "wagons, carriages, coaches, buggies, bicycles, and all other wheeled vehicles propelled by horse power or by the rider" pay an annual license fee. [3] (The law was ultimately declared unconstitutional.)"
"[3] The City of Chicago v. Lorin C. Collins, Jr. et. al., 175 Illinois 445 (October 24, 1898), pp. 445 - 459 at p. 446."

Do we have any lawyer-types who can tell us why the law was unconstitutional?

LMFAO - In modern day context, the ONLY thing that this law has to do with is BICYCLES, and it was deemed unconstitutional. Do these morons even know what they are quoting? The answer would be a resounding "NO" !!!

[Patriotdiscussions]

...


Driving is a commercial activity part deux, just for you.

Nonsense.

Is a car private or public property?

If private, can you direct me to any legal authority stating the government can regulate private property?

[Patriotdiscussions]

A license, therefore, implying a privilege, cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right, free and open to all, as is the right of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge, and without toll, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [38]

[38] The City of Chicago v. Lorin C. Collins, Jr. et. al., 175 Ill 445 (October 24, 1898) at pp., 456-457. The Court affirmed the illegality of the Chicago "Wheel Tax" ordinance.

I think this Yahoo page answers the question from the year 1898:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bic ... sages/9844

Lately, I've heard a few people say bicyclists don't pay taxes for the roads and don't have licenses to use the road. So.....

I've been searching the topic of driver licenses with the words "1908 driver license first" and found things that can prove helpful in understanding why motorists are required to have driver licenses and other road users aren't required to have driver licenses.

According to one website I looked at:
"For example, in 1898 the city of Chicago had in force a law which required that the owners of "wagons, carriages, coaches, buggies, bicycles, and all other wheeled vehicles propelled by horse power or by the rider" pay an annual license fee. [3] (The law was ultimately declared unconstitutional.)"
"[3] The City of Chicago v. Lorin C. Collins, Jr. et. al., 175 Illinois 445 (October 24, 1898), pp. 445 - 459 at p. 446."

Do we have any lawyer-types who can tell us why the law was unconstitutional?

LMFAO - In modern day context, the ONLY thing that this law has to do with is BICYCLES, and it was deemed unconstitutional. Do these morons even know what they are quoting? The answer would be a resounding "NO" !!!

I noticed you skipped over this

ut "no reason exists why [licensing] should apply to the owners of private vehicles used for their own individual use exclusively, in their own business, or for their own pleasure, as a means of locomotion."

[Patriotdiscussions]

The point being that a legal dictionary antique or current is irrelevant for the most part in a court setting. What matters is what the law says, not what someone claims the word means or the law means. That is the judge's responsibility. Just more sovcit FOTL intellectual dishonesty, to go along with their moral or moral honesty and integrity. They usually deny or ignore that there are actual statutes in every state regarding this, so just pra for the course.

Agreed, I was merely responding to the link that was posted, http://iamman51.blogspot.ca/2015/12/dri ... -deux.html, which pairs the CURRENT Florida statute with Law dictionary definitions from the 1800's !!!

Traffic - Bouvier's (1856)
Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like.

What's the definition of traffic today?

[Gregg]

In Ohio, its not called a driver's lisence, its an "Operator's Permit" and the little piece of paper that makes it legal for me to operate an aircraft is a "Pilot Certificate". I've noticed also the legal terms are changing, what used to be "Driving Under the Influence" is now "Operating a Vehicle Impaired". So much for driving anything....you can even be charged for OVI on private property and again, at least in Ohio, the car doesn't even need to be running, if you're in it, and you have the keys, you're operating it (which I think could be challenged, but that's another post)

Just pointing out that what a lot of SovCit Nitwits are saying about the "special legal meaning of words" is about words that are no longer in use anyhow....

[Gregg]

Is a car private or public property?

If private, can you direct me to any legal authority stating the government can regulate private property?

Books full of them....how about Zoning Laws? Gun registration, business permits, building codes, the entire OSHA and EPA titles, FFS I'd bet near a majority of statutes deal with property....

[Gregg]

Quoting a state court decision from 117 years ago only works when no new law has been passed to correct what the court found wrong, if you're arguing about something ONLY in the same state and the decision has not been overturned.

You failed 2 out of three, but keep trying, you might be right some day.

[fortinbras]

The dictionary definition in that link is attributed to an 1896 Alabama decision. But that decision didn't even mention motor vehicles, it dealt with bicycles - it held that bicycles were "vehicles" and thereby subject to a town's vehicle tax (considering that the popularity of bicycles was a major reason that towns began smoothing and paving roads, this is very reasonable). The word "driver" does not appear even once in that entire decision.

[fortinbras]

Is a car private or public property?
If private, can you direct me to any legal authority stating the government can regulate private property?

A car is private property. If you have a car delivered to your house and you put it in your garage (which is also private property) - no problem. If you drive your car on your own property - no problem.

But the streets and highways are public property and the vehicular laws, including the laws about driver's licenses, apply if you bring your private car onto the public roads.

[notorial dissent]

What's the definition of traffic today?

Merriam Webster, first one I picked up, gives me 7 different definitions, depending on context. I suspect YMMV depending on which dictionary you select, some more, some less. Your point?

Is a car private or public property?

If private, can you direct me to any legal authority stating the government can regulate private property?

That would be your state's constitution, statutes, and jurisprudence history.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Is a car private or public property?

If private, can you direct me to any legal authority stating the government can regulate private property?

Yes. But apparently that would only add to your confusion.

[arayder]

...
Is a car private or public property?

If private, can you direct me to any legal authority stating the government can regulate private property?

Yes. But apparently that would only add to your confusion.

PD asks questions the answers to which render his little counseling business useless. So, doing his best Perry Mason impression, he asks some more questions in the hope he'll look like a wise truth seeker.

I laughed out loud at the part where PD tries to pretend the OP needs to be schooled by the wise and wonderful patriotdiscussions. . .

You could of told her that you have no clue.

This from a guy who, despite being set straight countless times, still seems to think case law runs backwards.

[morrand]

A car is private property. If you have a car delivered to your house and you put it in your garage (which is also private property) - no problem. If you drive your car on your own property - no problem.

But the streets and highways are public property and the vehicular laws, including the laws about driver's licenses, apply if you bring your private car onto the public roads.

True story:

About six years ago, I had a bad motorcycle accident in Putnam County, Indiana, when I went for an unscheduled, unlicensed flight off the race track I was on (and, subsequently, a very licensed flight to the hospital in Indianapolis). There were several consequences to that, but one had to do with complying with Indiana's laws regarding the reporting of serious motor vehicle accidents to the local law enforcement agency. Not wanting to become a felon, on top of my other problems, I called up the county sheriff's office to ask them about it.

After a certain amount of astonishment, the officer I'd reached on the phone said it was the first time he'd been asked that question, but in the end, he felt that it wasn't necessary to report the crash, it having happened on a race track. Which was sensible, of course. But the point is that, even when handed the opportunity to bust a guy for the felony of failure to report a personal injury accident, even the local LEOs recognized the difference between activity on private property and that on a public road.

The point being, no, the issue the government is addressing is little or nothing to do with regulating private property; it's to do with regulating the use of public property, that being the streets and roads. They know the distinction, so why don't you?

By the way: Chicago's wheel tax, so maligned by the court? Still in effect, though admittedly not on bicycles. Perhaps PD and his friends should look for a better example.

[mpo]

... American government should have never interfered with highways. Americans created a free, mutual association, the American Automobile Association, which was dealing with all the new questions arising from the invention of automobiles. Private enterprise originated and built the first trans-Continental highway [this statement is not true if it refers to the Lincoln Highway]; free manufacturers and car-owners would have covered this country with highways, as free Americans covered it with wagon-roads. Americans wanted cars and highways; no police force was needed to take their money from them and spend it for highways. And it is injustice to the Americans who do not own cars, to compel them to pay for highways. [37]

This quote comes at the intersection of ignorance and bs. The 'Good Roads Movement' started in the late 1870s by cyclists because rural roads were uniformly bad. Farmers wanted to have better ways to transport goods to markets. Later, automobile owners joined the movement.

Ironically, many cash-poor southern states relied on statutory labor to maintain roads. Able-bodied males were required to work on road projects between 2 and 6 days per year. Quite the opposite of what is implied in the quote.

[arayder]

... American government should have never interfered with highways. Americans created a free, mutual association, the American Automobile Association, which was dealing with all the new questions arising from the invention of automobiles. Private enterprise originated and built the first trans-Continental highway [this statement is not true if it refers to the Lincoln Highway]; free manufacturers and car-owners would have covered this country with highways, as free Americans covered it with wagon-roads. Americans wanted cars and highways; no police force was needed to take their money from them and spend it for highways. And it is injustice to the Americans who do not own cars, to compel them to pay for highways. [37]

This quote comes at the intersection of ignorance and bs. The 'Good Roads Movement' started in the late 1870s by cyclists because rural roads were uniformly bad. Farmers wanted to have better ways to transport goods to markets. Later, automobile owners joined the movement.

Ironically, many cash-poor southern states relied on statutory labor to maintain roads. Able-bodied males were required to work on road projects between 2 and 6 days per year. Quite the opposite of what is implied in the quote.

Better roads, bridges and railroads were a part of the Republican party platform from the beginning of the party. Lincoln was particularly strong advocate of this plank this since he could remember his family having crops they could not get to market.

Harry Truman's father worked himself to death as a highway construction foreman. Truman (a democrat) would later recall his Missouri neighbors working off their road taxes by joining road work crews.

[Dick Dastardly]

As much as the sovs consider their beloved legal dictionaries the last and final word, they conveniently ignore this preface:

Nearly every area of the law has undergone change and development
since publication of the Fifth· Edition in 1979. This period has
seen particular change and expansion in such areas as tax, finance,
commercial transactions, debtor-creditor relations, tort liability, employment,
health care, environment, and criminal law. Congress and
the states continue to legislate new rights and remedies; the courts
continue to define and redefine legal terms; the states are increasingly
adopting uniform or model laws and rules; and new causes of action
and legal concepts continue unabated.
The vocabulary of the law has likewise continued to change and
expand to keep pace. This has necessitated not only a significant
expansion of new words and terms for inclusion in this Sixth Edition,
but also a reexamination of all existing entries for currentness of legal
usage. Indicative of this growth is that this new edition required the
addition or revision of over 5,000 legal words and terms. Thousands of
other changes were required to update or supplement supporting citations.

from Blacks 6th edition and I believe every edition contains a similar caution, how willfully ignorant must one be to completely ignore that?
There is a youtube of some sov showing off his entire 9 volume hardback Blacks Law collection that he keeps in his car at all times, apparently which the mere sight of will bring any nasty policy enforcer to their knees.

[notorial dissent]

The other option was the old tried and true private venue of toll roads which had worked so well and done so much to advance the cause of commerce on the frontier and just commerce in general to begin with, that were built when and how someone felt like it and for which they charged whatever(you know, literally what the TRAFFIC would bear) they felt like for others to use them. So looks like Paytriotblather boy's got his "facts" wrong yet again. Color me shocked and surprised.

[Patriotdiscussions]

So roads were not public in south Dakota until the 1950's?

Why were licensed drivers not required in south Dakota until the 1950's.

[Patriotdiscussions]

A car is private property. If you have a car delivered to your house and you put it in your garage (which is also private property) - no problem. If you drive your car on your own property - no problem.

But the streets and highways are public property and the vehicular laws, including the laws about driver's licenses, apply if you bring your private car onto the public roads.

True story:

About six years ago, I had a bad motorcycle accident in Putnam County, Indiana, when I went for an unscheduled, unlicensed flight off the race track I was on (and, subsequently, a very licensed flight to the hospital in Indianapolis). There were several consequences to that, but one had to do with complying with Indiana's laws regarding the reporting of serious motor vehicle accidents to the local law enforcement agency. Not wanting to become a felon, on top of my other problems, I called up the county sheriff's office to ask them about it.

After a certain amount of astonishment, the officer I'd reached on the phone said it was the first time he'd been asked that question, but in the end, he felt that it wasn't necessary to report the crash, it having happened on a race track. Which was sensible, of course. But the point is that, even when handed the opportunity to bust a guy for the felony of failure to report a personal injury accident, even the local LEOs recognized the difference between activity on private property and that on a public road.

The point being, no, the issue the government is addressing is little or nothing to do with regulating private property; it's to do with regulating the use of public property, that being the streets and roads. They know the distinction, so why don't you?

By the way: Chicago's wheel tax, so maligned by the court? Still in effect, though admittedly not on bicycles. Perhaps PD and his friends should look for a better example.

I see, so when they regulate how dark my window tint is, that's them regulating the public road, not my private auto.

Makes sense to an idiot.

[Patriotdiscussions]

What's the definition of traffic today?

Merriam Webster, first one I picked up, gives me 7 different definitions, depending on context. I suspect YMMV depending on which dictionary you select, some more, some less. Your point?

Is a car private or public property?

If private, can you direct me to any legal authority stating the government can regulate private property?

That would be your state's constitution, statutes, and jurisprudence history.

Nothing in those authorities you listed says anything about regulating and private property in the same sentence.

If private property can only be taken thru just compensation, can you guys explain how homes are taken for 500 dollars in back taxes?