SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Just a note, here in the US driving is not a right, it's a privilege.

Does the UK define driving as a right?

--Outlaw.

ok lets look at the language used in the law....a motor vehicle is specifically referring to a vehicle engaged in commerce....



most of us here are simply travelers, NOT drivers....drivers in the language used in the law means someone engaged in commerce...a truck DRIVER, a taxi DRIVER....


if im driving to work or driving my children to some athletic event i am not a driver i am a traveler....and the right to freely travel is a common law right...

this driving/traveler issue only made more complicated with DMV and people voluntarily entering in a contract with the dmv by getting licensed....thus you are agreeing to put yourself under the jurisdiction of their laws..


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.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

This definition of "motor vehicle" does not include "private motor Vehicles" as distinguished from the 18 USC 31 "motor vehicle" definition and as was clearly distinguished in Bowman vs City of Kansas City. As a consequence to this fact, this court has not addressed the issue we promote on property rights.