10 votes

Screw Having A Drivers License! Who Here Does Not Use One (Successfully!)

After reading the post on NY and their "law" I thought... why in the hell do we still use them? It has been proven via several supreme court rulings that they are not lawfully needed or required to be able to drive a car on the road, so...

WHY THE HELL DOES ANYONE EVEN GET THEM ANYMORE?

If you or anyone you know, has successfully driven without a license in any state, please share your experiences. Also any court cases, or documentation that people can use to prove the legality would be great!

Thanks!!

-------------EDIT-----------------------------------
here are the two cases, (thanks meek and mild!)

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Try getting a job without a

Try getting a job without a drivers license and tell me how that works out???

There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan

"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr

Uh.. I've never ever been

Uh.. I've never ever been asked for a drivers license at a job, and I have plenty of friends without cars or drivers licenses with jobs. There's absolutely no reason a company would require that.

your speaking of an ID vs and DL

and while not having and ID can prove to be almost impossible , the thread is focused on a DL. ( a person could have a passport or some such thing for ID)

Great timing on this post I

Great timing on this post I have been thinking about this for the past few days.

Great post!

In Indian country many call their automobiles a "pony" which drives the "law" a bit nutty and/or confuses them.

Liberty is on the march, tyranny is on the run!

I have always wondered how Native Americans manage this

Do they have their own DL? or do they not even bother? If they do have their own, does it only apply on the reservation? or is it honored in surrounding state territories? If you know please post!

More complex than you think, this is how it works...

You can NOT "drive" without a "license". "Driving" is a privilege, "traveling" is a natural right (no such thing as a "constitutional right" as the Bill of Rights is a completely separate document than the Constitution which is why people sound like idiots to judges in court rooms yelling about "constitutional rights"). Privileges are given in exchange for rights, and can be taken away.

You contract your right to travel in your private automobile (conveyance is an even safer word than automobile) for the privilege to drive a motor vehicle. Look in your statutes for the definition of words like "driving" and "motor vehicle". Driving is a COMMERCIAL act. Traveling is a NON-COMMERCIAL act. The Federal government has the authority to regulate all interstate commerce, and can delegate that authority to the states. Once you sign that contract, you're on the hook until your DL expires or you turn that license back into the DMV and rescind your signature on the record.

Also, you do NOT own your car. The state does... registering transfers the true title to the car (MCOS - Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin) to the state in exchange for an abstract of title and possession instead of true ownership rights. You can get the MCOS in some states if you buy a car outright with cash, but so long as you hold that title, you can NOT register the car (or forever lose the title), and you can NOT get license plates, NOR inspection sticker. A federal DOT number you can get... if the form is filled out properly.

The MCOS must them be put into a trust, so that the trust owns the car. One should NEVER own anything under one's name. May want to learn a thing or two from the Kennedys, Rockefellers, and the other families that run the entire world. Trusts, trusts, trusts. The government can NOT touch a private trust if done properly.

Even then, if you choose this lifestyle, you WILL still get harassed by cops. They do not know any better, nor are they trained to know any better. Be prepared to spend nights in jail, or worse. You'll need to know the law better than most lawyers, and it's doable... sedm.org is your source, as well as famguardian.org.

However, I do not recommend this lifestyle to anyone really, unless you're already just about completely off the grid.

State Statutes Definitions

I have looked up my state (Oklahoma) and several other states and the definitions do not imply commerce in them. Not that I could find anyways. So can someone please explain to me what is going here?

Laws 1961, p. 316, § 1113.

§471114. Driver.

Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2006/os47.html

§47-1-134. Motor vehicle.

Motor vehicle.

A. A motor vehicle is:

1. Any vehicle which is self-propelled; or

2. Any vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails.

B. As used in this title, the term "motor vehicle" shall not include:

1. Implements of husbandry, as defined in Section 1-125 of this title;

2. Electric personal assistive mobility devices as defined in Section 1-114A of this title;

3. Motorized wheelchairs, as defined in Section 1-136.3 of this title; or

4. Vehicles moved solely by human or animal power.

Added by Laws 1961, p. 318, § 1-134, eff. Sept. 1, 1961. Amended by Laws 1978, c. 304, § 1; Laws 1981, c. 103, § 1; Laws 2002, c. 58, § 2, emerg. eff. April 11, 2002; Laws 2003, c. 411, § 6, eff. Nov. 1, 2003; Laws 2005, c. 50, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2005.

http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2006/os47.html

Thanks for the details......

I have always wondered what states you can get the original title from.(do you know?) I also wondered about reclaiming original title on a car that you own that is paid off. Some say its impossible. (it may be) I do know however, that you can own and pay reg. w/o a DL. The thing about the MCOS though, is how can you (or can you) prove to the state that you dont need to reg. it? (I dont know of any court cases that state whether or not you can own/drive a car/vehicle w/ MCOS and not be "required" to reg. in said state.

You are right about being smarter than a lawyer though. I am aware that is needed. And I know most people would not even care to find out or do the necessary research on this subject to actually go through w/it. But some will(as you can see by this recent post-->>> http://www.dailypaul.com/318587/candidate-for-governor-in-fl...

does anyone know how his lawsuit/court case worked out?

I know that finally he got one surrounding the DL issue!

Guys look up the Act of 1871

Guys look up the Act of 1871

drivers' licensing ok

Does anyone here also want to support not having pilot's licenses? The premise here seems so juvenile.

The 10th Amendment allows states powers not delegated to the federal government. States do set up rules of commerce, including conduct in the public area. If driver's licenses were prohibited for political reasons or made so expensive that large numbers of individuals couldn't travel, there would be constitutional complications. Making sure that drivers have a basic understanding of road rules and can safely operate a vehicle seems consistent with protecting life. Otherwise, why should anyone similarly observe stop signs or why can't 12 years olds capable of riding bicycles also use cars? Why have any laws for that matter?

Someone has to be Captain Obvious ...

The purpose of law is to make one liable for harms caused by exercising their freedom. The purpose of law is not prevent one from exercising freedom.

If you believe the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, or pursue happiness are inalienable, unlimited, rights that can not be converted to privileges under any circumstances then hell yes ... a plane can be used to enjoy life or pursue happiness, no pilot license required. Why can't 12 a year old also use cars? Yes, why the hell not? My old man taught me to drive when I was an early teen. Why have any laws? See first paragraph.

The problem is not freedom, it is enemies of freedom who say but if we let people exercise freedom they could harm others. No shit, that is what law was supposed to be for, making one liable for inflicting harm. However, anti-freedom people do not believe in freedom. They want law to prevent harm which is an impossibility. Well, it might be harmful to do, so let us enact a law.

Law is not a babysitter to make anyone feel all secure, warm, and fuzzy. Enemies of freedom bitch if there are too many laws. What the hell? If you agree with a principal law can prevent or preemptively redress harm so you can feel all warm, fuzzy, and safe then shut the hell up and stop bitching about how many laws there are. Everything in life is a risk, under preemptive principals there are a lot of laws that need to be enacted.

Inalienable rights to enjoy and defend life, and pursue happiness were not juvenile ideas ... they were revolutionary ones.

License does not equal competency

.

The supreme court does not agree with you

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579

Did you find the actual cases?

When you first posted this I looked into the first one a bit, and from what I could find it was a *state* supreme court ruling (Illinois), and the summaries I found made it look even less likely that it would be a useful precedent. Not to mention that a couple of people who claimed to have tracked it down said that the alleged quote isn't found in the case. Maybe the case was appealed to the Supreme Court but if so, I couldn't find it.

If Thompson v Smith is the one discussed here:
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164100
then it's a Virginia state case and as with the first one, it may have been appealed to the Supreme Court but I didn't find it. Furthermore it explicitly endorses the requirement of a state-issued permit:

The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking under rules of general application permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to others of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.

Unknown context

Do you really think those quotes apply to 12 year olds, people who can't pass a vision test, those with drunk driving records, or people who can't pass a test about traffic rules?

I don't know the context of those legal responses. Were the judges saying that someone had been deprived of their liberty for arbitrary reasons like not paying parking tickets or that all drunk drivers should come and go as they please?

yes! here is why....

before (and still today in some places) When you were 12 (and were big enough) you would drive. Many people stopped going to school at 12 and started working full time on the farm or where ever. They also started driving (once cars were available)

As far as vision tests, etc those came later, also. (obviously if a person was completely blind they would not drive)

Drunk driving? most people drank and drove. In fact the Constitution does not mention limiting freedom by measuring someone based on what they drink or how much. (Now if someone did drink and hurt someone, they should be help 100% RESPONSIBLE for their actions)

Pass a driving test? where does it say in order to be able to experience a certain amount of freedom to travel etc that a person must first pass a "test"? Does a person need a test to ride a horse? Nope. Could they do as much or more damage w/ that horse as with a car? YES.

The point here is that you are arguing this from the perspective that driving is a privilege, vs a right! If its a privilege , then your arguments stand, if its a right , then they don't.

I see what you did...copy and

I see what you did...copy and paste the same thing over and over again...

The state can require a lic. Name one state that doesnt.

What the "law" or rules say do not matter, if they are illegal

The thing is a person must challenge those rules either in court or w/ the officer in order to win their LEGAL FREEDOM . (thus the point of this thread)

As there are people who have posted in the past, here, about challenging the whole DL issue, and winning! (both in court and w/ an officer)

Those 2 court cases I have posted, are the only 2 I know of , however I think there may be more somewhere(besides those)

And since the Constitution is the highest law of the land, if any other law contradicts it, it is considered illegal and void.

and yet you still have to

and yet you still have to have one to drive on the streets. I have never, ever heard or seen anyone getting away with it. AFTER being stopped and taken to court.

Yes well that is the point of this thread.

There have been reports of people successfully using the above cases, and others, to legally beat the DL rules/laws in court.

(some of these people have posted on the DP in the past)

until that is listed/posted it will not be known "exactly" how this is possible, or even if it is.

Stopped driving years ago.

I've been riding a bike for about 4 years. I'm 29 and I would be willing to be I'm in the 98% of people that are in extremely good shape. However my parents are convinced women won't date a man that rides a bike. I always say it doesn't seem to stop them. Afterall in the days of the morbidly obese having a perfectly toned body AND money seems to work just fine.

Glad to hear about your fitness, finance, and dating success

how do you see it relating to this thread.

Glad you straightened out your mom

Because

So many people could be in shape but choose to not be. Biking is something simple that keeps me in tip-toe shape. And this is the best for spreading the message of liberty, as I'm an attractive person and living what I believe.

To be honest, it's very easy to do without a DL.

Stop driving. I did in 2002.

well that is not the point .

Legally according to the constitution and the supreme court ,we have a right to drive. (without being licensed), however people dont know this, thus they use a license.