Big Brother’s doing a bit more than just watching you these days.
Remember the last time you got your driver’s license renewed? You may recall the procedure for taking your picture was a bit different than it used to be. Instead of the usual “smile”! you might have been told to do no such thing – very specifically. To be as expressionless as possible. And that the system seemed more “high-tech” than it used to be. Instead of receiving your new license on-site, it would be mailed to you in a week or so – from some unspecified “secure location,” perhaps. You may have been told or seen signs or been given literature explaining that the new way of taking your picture is part of new security measures designed to make it harder for people to manufacture fake IDs (since a driver’s license is the de facto national ID in this country).
But they probably didn’t mention that the pictures – digitized images, actually – were to be downloaded into a new database that uses facial recognition software to “scan” for (are you surprised?) Terrorists – among other things.
Only it’s ordinary Americans who are being terrorized.
As The Boston Globe reports, Massachussetts resident John H. Gass had his license revoked after the facial recognition Hive Mind deemed him an un-Person. Glass had done nothing, though – other than being tardy opening his mail, including a threatening letter from the Massachussetts Registry of Motor Vehicles demanding that he prove the guy pictured on his DL was, in fact, him.
Here’s where it gets interesting – and depressing.
Gass had already established his identity – apparently, to the satisfaction of the state motor vehicle authorities – at the time his license was originally issued. Just like everyone else who applies for a DL.
Now it – well, a computer – demanded he prove it again. On his nickel. On his own time.
Or else.
“Or else” being – no more driving privileges for you.
Gass tried to do so – for ten days, according to The Globe.
First, he called the Motor Vehicle Registry, explaining that he’d forgotten to open his mail, including the letter they’d sent dated March 22, which notified him his license had been revoked effective April 1. The bureaucrats at the registry advised him his digitized image had been “flagged” by the computer because it was similar in appearance to the image of someone else. Now it was up to him, said the Registry drone, to come to them with documents to prove his identity.
Again.
Remember, Gass, like everyone else who has a DL, had to provide such documentation at the time the DL was issued. He had complied with the letter of the law. But now the law had changed. The arbitrary determination of a computer had resulted in the capricious revocation of his DL. This is of a piece with the TSA “No Fly” lists that have created nightmare hassles for people just trying to board a plane whose only association with “Islamic Terrorism” is that they watched Syriana a couple of years back. Usually not even that. 
“I was shocked,’’ Gass said in a recent interview. “As far as I was concerned, I had done nothing wrong.’’
Meanwhile, his license would remain revoked – no small thing for Gass, who drives for a living.
So Gass brought his birth certificate and Social Security card to the Registry to establish that he was in fact himself (again). Insufficient. The drones demanded he also produce additional documents with his current address on them. By this time, Gass had obtained the assistance of a lawyer, who provided the registry drones with the documents and on April 14, at last, his driving privileges were restored.
Gass is suing the state, demanding a court an injunction blocking the MA Motor Vehicle Registry from revoking anyone’s driver’s license without at least giving them a hearing first.
May the Force be with him.
And with the rest of us, too – because this business is not confined to that imprisoned land, The People’s Republic of Massachussetts. At least 34 states are also using facial recognition software – typically (as in the case of MA) funded by a “grant” from the Department of Homeland Security.
Massachussetts received $1.5 million taxpayer dollars to harass the taxpayers of Massachussetts, for instance.
“The advantage if securing the identity of 4 1/2 million drivers is of considerable state interest,” says MA Motor Vehicle Registry Obergruppenfuhrer Rachel Kaprielian. “We send out 1,500 suspension letters every day,” she croons.
And it’s up to each and every one of these hapless recipients to prove to the state that the state is wrong – another example of the casual upending of a basic tenet of what was once our common heritage in the West: That you are innocent until proven guilty.
Not the reverse.
“There are mistakes that can be made,” admits Kaprielian. Naturlich.
But that’s not the state’s problem, of course.
It is Gass’s problem.
And quite possibly, your problem, too.
Throw it in the Woods?
We have someone here in Oklahoma that is bucking the new licensing requirement concerning facial recognition and thumbprint. She is Kaye Beach can be found on Facebook at AxXiom for Liberty and is an activist in the true sense of the word.
She has taken the case to court. Here is a link to her saga.
http://www.constitutionalalliance.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56%3Atoday-was-a-good-day-for-freedom-kaye-beachs-legal-journey-moves-forward&catid=1%3Aarticles
They require a thumbprint too?
Yes, a thumb print, too.
Holy smokes! That is the craziest thing I’ve ever heard. I know I used to have to do that cashing checks at banks sometimes, but damn!
When I first got my license in 1999 in Texas I had to give my thumbprint. I can’t believe this isn’t more widespread than it is.
This is a great site- I just found out about it today. Here in Florida we also have Adrian Wyllie, who made two videos- one of him refusing to waive his 4th Amendment rights that required him to submit personal papers w/o a warrant to renew his license, and then one where he was stopped and ticketed for an expired driver’s license.
Driver’s license renewal:
Traffic stop:
All of this mess is due squarely to the unconstitutional federal REAL ID law of 2005. It was passed while hidden in a defense & Tsunami relief bill. Congress has no authority to tell states how to issue their licenses, but unless a state stands up to them, it’s the “law”. We’ve wasted over $10 million of our tax dollars in Florida alone on this, and do not have one illegal alien or terrorist in custody due to it. We’ve got plenty of divorced and remarried ladies that had to make multiple trips to the DMV due to name changes though.
I salute both Kaye and Adrian (both of whom I know due to the REAL ID battle) for taking a stand so many either can’t or won’t take.
We have a bill for 2012 that will do away with things such as scanning of documents of citizens and the national/international facial recognition standard, as well as prohibiting fingerprinting. It will also require the secure destruction of all of the illegally seized papers. For more info, visit our site & blog. If you’re in Florida reading this, we need your help with our legislators, who ignored the issue in 2011.
Paul Henry
Floridians Against REAL ID
Website: http://www.liberty2010.org/realid
Facebook Group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=115180305181083
Sad it has to come to this. I can’t even imagine how much a protest like this would end up costing a regular joe.
As the saying goes, freedom isn’t free…
For my own part, I’ve decided to never fly again – at least, not until one can fly without being handled like an incoming felony arrestee. That means to see my parents in AZ I have to drive there from Virginia. Three days of (steady) driving time each way vs. one day of flying time. But I won’t submit to be being handled by some geek from the TSA, nor will I go through one of those backscatter radiation machines.
Also, I will have nothing do with fascist “health care.” I will not pay, I will not play. They can come get me, if they want to.
I’m ready.
We, too, will not be flying. I will not subject my 5-year-old daughter (or wife) to the scanners’ radiation–which is MUCH higher than reported–nor to a potential sexual assault.
I won’t have this conversation with my daughter:
“Sweetie, no-one is allowed to touch your private parts, except a doctor and only if Mommy is there. Or if it’s someone from the government with a costume and a badge.”
And it’s not just the radiation; it’s the principle at stake. You don’t get to see my naked butt, period.
By the way, don’t fall for the fallacy that flying is a “privilege”–oh how they’re trying to make everything a privilege! No, there are at least three strong SCOTUS decisions supporting travel as a right, not to mention an actual US Code:
See USConstitution.net
Kaye Beach has a show called Axxiom for Liberty at ruleoflawradio.com
I’ve never listened to it though.I always listen to the namesake show(ruleoflaw).The Agenda 21 show is good sometimes as well(but not the UN scheme of the same name).
When I renewed my license at the Oregon DMV about a year ago, one of the DMV drones asked me what my birthplace was. I told them where I was born: San Diego, CA.
They told me that my answer was “incorrect” and after some haggling they told me that their records showed I was born in Southfield, MI. Uh, well I don’t remember the day I was born very well, but I know what it says on my birth certificate, and I believe what my parents tell me about which hospital I came into this life in.
Anyway, at one point I peeked around the counter to see what other wrong information they might have on their screen. A middle aged woman who looked very much like a career DMV employee proceeded to get between the monitor and my line of sight and scream at me.. “SIR! What you just did is a FELONY!”
Huh? It’s a felony for me to look at my own information? Whatever. I guess I should be happy that they just changed my record without giving me too much trouble.
Ha, we don’t get many felons on here! -ha
What a joke, some people kill me. I remember when I got my DUI (11 years ago). My license was taken away immediately for a few days, but then I was able to get it back until my court date. Anyhow, I had to go to DMV to get it back so I could use it before my court date. The person behind the counter was like “Mr. XXXXX, did something recently happen for you to lose your license?” I was like yeah, and now I am here to get it back. He went on and on about the shit. Which was none of his fucking business. Clowns! Our personal information is being handed out to the least common denominators in our society.
Yep! Just like the preachy lectures about “safety” that cops often give before they hand you a BS piece of payin’ paper… I like the Mexican Model better. Over there, no BS. You just give the cop a few bills and he gos away. No ticket, no lectures, no “points.” Just: Gibs muh a dollah.
I like my corruption to be honest, if you know what I mean…
The huffy arrogance of these low-grade Brownshirts chafes. I look forward to the day when they get their much-deserved Karmic reward.
Now understand why the Texas DMV had me remove my glasses for my picture even though no one outside my house will ever see me without them on.
You would have dealt with Texas DPS, which issues driver’s licenses in that state. Texas DMV is responsible for title and tags.
Outside of obvious problems with big brother, this is typical of what is going on all over the place as our leaders get more and more afraid and rightfully so of the results of the last 10 years of wrong decisions.
Where they are going wrong is making it obvious. Always in the past, being cautious has ruled the day.
Who ever told them computers were not hackable? I guess like all witch trials it only goes away when it affects someone important. Then look out.
The computers are programmed by human beings. Human beings make mistakes. So you put garbage in a computer, you will get processed garbage out. And that is the problem with all computer programs.
Remember that eventually they will come for you. I refer to the present bunch of idiots that are above the law right now. Eventually what applies to me and you will come to bite them big time.
That is the biggest reason to not do what is being done with driver’s licenses. It puts way too much power in the hands of “They” meaning nameless bureacrats.
Yep – though the Clovers will never get it…
The dual premise they start from – government is good, government is competent – is as shoddy as a termite-eaten joist. And the two things feed off each other: Pernicious policies breed incompetence. Government becomes less and less competent the more authoritarian it becomes. Clovers make the mistake of attributing a kind of Super Hive Mind genius (and super morality) to “government” without stopping to consider that “government” is really just a construct – that in fact, “government” is just the individuals who control the levers of power. And not only are individuals imperfect in their judgment, they are likely to act in their own best interests. Only when you’re talking about individuals who wield power over other individuals, their interests become warped – even evil. This is the root of all the misery we’ve come to associate with “government,” in my opinion. And it is the reason why, at the very least, government (authority over others) must be defined and limited to a very few areas of human life. Ideally, the maintenance of the rule of law (criminal and civil) and (legitimate) national defense (think Switzerland).
Certain things ought to be ironclad, such as:
* No use of government force to provide a material benefit to any person at the expense of another against his will, for any reason whatsoever. Yes, life is full of tragedy. Widows and orphans; the indigent elderly; victims of natural disasters and plain old bad luck. But the greatest atrocity the human mind has ever come up with – because ultimately, it leads to all the others – is the notion of using organized force, legitimized by “the law” and “the vote” to turn a fundamental moral wrong (theft) into an entitlement when committed by a group. It has set man against man – and undermined the noble human instinct of charity toward others. In a society where theft is legitimized by the ballot box (or bureaucratic edict), people come to resent one another and view their fellow men – rightly – with the same alarm that a deer probably feels when it sights a pack of coyotes. Predation should be the real of animals and criminals – not human beings, much less government.
* No tax on income or real estate. All necessary taxes should be obtained solely through sales/use taxes and (where necessary) tariffs (as on goods produced by stoop labor in authoritarian societies). It is none of the government’s business what you do for a living, how much you earn, what your assets are – and so on. It is loathsome – and anathema to a free society – to have to open your books to the government and provide them with every last minute detail of your financial life, at gunpoint. A free man ought to be able to own his land/home – really own it, free and clear – as opposed to being a serf permitted to use land/occupy a home so long as he continues to pay the annual tax to the government – at gunpoint.
* Absolute right to possess firearms without limit until and unless that right is forfeited by an individual as a result of the criminal misuse of a firearm (in which case, punishment for that individual should be severe).
* Criminal and civil law enforcement based on the concept: no victim, no crime.
* Citizenship and the franchise based on acceptance of the principles outlined above.
Excellent.
Your concept of “the Clovers” is magnificent!
None of this shit will ever happen. Sure sounds nice though.
I always find it funny how people fear what might happen when individuals are free to conduct their affairs in the matter that is most befitting of the individual circumstances. Yet they never seem to worry about what happens when you give other men the power of life and death over large segments of the population. The 20th century alone should more than enough evidence of not what might happen, but what will inevitably happen when coercive monopoly power is given to men. 200 million dead bodies at the hands of government (not including wars) is the price we pay to have the illusion of safety, security, and order at the hands of the leviathan state. How anyone can believe that you and I can extract this kind of carnage without the power of the tax system is beyond me. In fact I would issue a challenge to all clovers who happen to read this: go back in the twentieth century and tally up all the murders that happened in every country across the globe. Tell me if all the serial killers, gangbangers, and malcontents approach that 200 million dead body figure. Of course we all know the answer, but it would be an interesting exercise for the clovers to see that the entity in which they are willing to vest unlimited power in, is by far the most deadly.
Well-said, Ed.
But Clovers won’t be moved by this because they’re not capable of thinking conceptually, can’t holdmore than one thought in their heads at the same time – and have a reflexively reverential view of government/authority.
They’re hopeless.
The issue for us is: How do we contain Cloverism?
Amen to all that, Eric.
I think you’d characterize yourself as a minarchist, am I correct?
How about the next step–one of the libertarian flavors of anarchy, such as agorism?
I believe that ANY government becomes, over time, a fearful tyranny. Only when the concept of giving one entity a monopoly over violence and coercion in a given geography becomes extinct, will man be truly free. In fact NO entity should be given a right to aggress, anywhere.
This is the fundamental tenet of all branches of libertarianism–the NAP or ZAP–Non-Aggression Principle or better the Zero-Aggression Principle.
If everyone stops accepting anyone’s right to aggress against his or her person, property, or time, voila! a peaceful society emerges.
I would argue any human organisation becomes a tyranny over time, not just government. Though Libertarians would say that any private organisation that ceases to compete and begins using force for personal gain has made the transition and become a government.
Ye gods – we agree!
This (misuse of authority/power over others) is why Libertarians start from the principle of non-aggression. It’s an almost perfect doctrine, morally speaking. Theft, for instance, is theft – whether it is done by a single street thug or a gang of thugs calling themselves government. Using force against anyone first (that is, not in defense against the threat of force) is always wrong, no matter how it’s couched.
So, we start from there.
If a person is harming no one – not some Cloverite hysteria about “might” but actual, provable injury – then he is entitled to go about his life without being threatened with physical violence, either by other individuals or groups of individuals.
I find it amazing that so many people oppose this gentle, humanistic, live and let live philosophy of peaceful co-existence and voluntary cooperation.
Aw shucks Casey Anthony never posed a threat to you so why care that she was found not guily? (Then again Libertarians ought to for jury nullification regardless as the State shouldn’t be in the business of law enforement.)
Aussie Clover: Another example of Cloverian hysteria, emoting and “bait and switch.” You have it exactly backward: Libertarians oppose doing any sort of violence to anyone for any reason – except in response to violence. Only a Clover could try to conflate opposing gratuitous violence with advocating acceptance of gratuitous violence.
Try again, chief.
I understand what you are saying.However,in many states it’s in the code that it’s commercial(motor vehicle).I did make the point you have to read your state laws,learn procedure and know what you are doing. Everyone has to choose their battles. For some it isn’t worth it. I renewed my license before I learned.Tickets are another matter.
Don’t think income tax is a good analogy as far as making clear cut credible arguments that will win, but there is a risk/reward-effort/outcome parallel.
Check out ruleoflawradio.com No BS legal hocus pocus that some try and fail at.
Also,to be clear, I never said “driving”(as opposed to traveling) wasn’t a privilege.
The federal income tax is a parallel because like this “driving is a privilege” stuff it is a perception, where illusion becomes reality. The federal income tax on wages is not lawful for a number of reasons but there is the perception it is and as such it is backed up with violence so it is effectively the law.
Driving is a right as much as operating a horse or horse and carriage is a right. A horse can be a very dangerous animal, but when the first puttering cars came along some people were afraid of the new thing and with that licensing drivers began. At first it wasn’t much and didn’t even try to turn driving into a government granted privilege. But slowly over time a perception was created that driving is a privilege granted by the state. With this successfully achieved the state has been slowly and often sporadically applying the powers gained over drivers to pedestrians, air travelers, train riders, bus riders, and much more. Even more disturbing is how they are slowly finding application to the home.
Illusions are maintained with violence and ridicule. Something true of both these topics. Both are what they are not because of any legality but because the great majority of people believe the illusions. Good luck fighting in government court where everyone including your own lawyer believes what he was told and never looked deeper to dispel that illusion. Now that they have believed it for so long most will continue to do so rather than admitting they were wrong or fooled.
Driving is only a right when you drive a car solely on your private land. Even driving on a private road is a privilege via the private road owner.
Spoken like a true Clover!
PS: I agree with your second point.
Eric,no offense,but you are reinforcing ignorance with some of these posts on DMV, license,insurance,tickets and related issues.You can do a great service by becoming better informed about the “right to travel”(google it) and passing that information on to the public. To “drive” a “motor vehicle” is to “transport” “passengers” and goods for hire and is commercial activity,a privilige which requires a license.You have a RIGHT to “travel” in your private automobile.Of course you must know how to defend your right(s).Listen to Eddie Craig tonight 8-10 at ruleoflawradio.com,you can call in and discuss or contact [email protected] They are in Austin.
“reinforcing ignorance” How so?
Speaking of ignorant I misspelled privilege.lol Anyway,they don’t teach you this in driver’s ed:
“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.
“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.
“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.
“The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941
How is Eric reinforcing ignorance is what I’m asking?
By reinforcing the myth that you need a license to travel in your private automobile,that the police can regulate that travel and that all we can do is whine about it.Didn’t mean any disrespect, but if you replace all those sorts of articles with articles informing people of this it would do more good.He has a pretty large audience with the lewrockwell.com links.It isn’t just him. Will Alston(a claimed anarchist) was whining about the DMV on there a few months ago.Meant to respond to him but never did. It’s just frustrating to see this once you know the truth.
Also I should say this wasn’t the right article to say this on,just the most recent along these lines. It was a good article,but with slow implementation of biometric id people should know you don’t need a license if you don’t “drive”. But again you do have to know how to defend yourself at the trial level(where you will probably lose) and build your record for appeal.
Understood. I think he does his best, but things could always be better. We created a section on this site just for people like you, the U Rant section! Feel free to create a rant and we’ll post it, or just keep commenting here. I’m sure Eric will carry on good dialogue with you on this subject. I’m pretty surprise he hasn’t already. He must be out in the yard splitting wood!
Good luck with this!
Again, I agree with the sentiment – just as I agree that the federal income tax is illegitimate.
But, just as you’ll quickly discover if you assert to the IRS that you are not a “taxpayer” (or you have no “taxable income”),you’ll discover real quick what happens if you drive without a license and get caught doing so. They will arrest you and tow/impound your car.
Again, it sucks – I wish it were different – but it isn’t. I admire anyone brave enough to actually ignore “the law” – but anyone who does so must be prepared to deal with the consequences.
It’s not a myth that you’ll be arrested if you don’t abide by these various edicts – here just as much as in the old Soviet Union or anywhere else.
With regard to driver’s licenses, it is almost impossible to live (let alone drive) without one. You will have a helluva time opening a bank account, for example. Or buying a new car.
Do I like this? Hell no!
But the question is: Do the old legal cites you’ve posted have current statutory authority? Will they trump more recent case law/precedent? Will the cops/courts go by what you’ve referenced – or by the law/case law on the books?
The argument about the right to travel negating driver licensing is long dead. Here is an interesting summary from a legal journal:
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/orphaned_right.pdf
Oklahoma City University Law Review
Summer 2005
30 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 245
“The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950”, by Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D.
The argument strongly resembles those used by tax protesters and “sovereign citizens” that have long been discredited by state and federal courts, but still get dredged up by gullible people (or those with an agenda that doesn’t include your best interests) who can’t be bothered to look at the actual cases of the last several decades with opposing rulings.
The point about “motor vehicles” meaning only those used in commercial activity has a parallel in tax protests in the claim that the government taxing income from “labor” somehow means only the labor of someone else working for you, not your own labor. Meaning that the feds supposedly cannot impose income tax on money you earn by the sweat of your brow. Dictionary definitions, the 16th Amendment, and Title 26 of the US Code say quite clearly otherwise, but the protesters don’t tell you that. Likewise with these claims about a highly restrictive definition of “motor vehicle”.
The referenced journal makes clear that court rulings on vehicles evolved from the simplistic position that licensing automobiles and their drivers went against a right to travel. It should be patently obvious that we have too many lousy drivers even with licensing, so imagine the carnage if any idiot could simply take off in a car, no questions asked. The power, speed, and weight of a car make it a lethal weapon in the hands of the unskilled, and not making some attempt to license drivers would be foolhardy.
I am the first to decry credentialism. You shouldn’t need an occupational license for most jobs, for example. But licensing the driver of a 3,000-pound missile capable of 100+ mph is a necessary evil.
You don’t need to register or have licences to drive a car on your own private land. Tough luck if it’s just a quarter-acre.
Aussie Clover:
Such things (licenses and registration, etc.) are noting more than another vehicle for extracting money from people for the sake of feeding the rapacious maw of government (that is, Useless Eaters) and for exercising unwarranted control over individuals.
What does a license have to do with your ability to drive? Virtually nothing. Driver competence is not evaluated; just rote memorization of arbitrary rules. The license itself is in fact an ID. That is its primary purpose. It has almost nothing to do with the skill one has behind the wheel. You Clovers don’t seem to notice the appallingly poor driving abilities of the typical driver – in spite of all the licensing rigmarole. The fact is, drivers were better, on average, decades ago – before licensing rigmarole became as onerous as it is today.
Registration? Just another tax – in perpetuity. You buy the car, you pay sales tax. Then you pay tax to title it. Then you pat tax to keep on owning it. Then you pay taxes again to “register” it – every year, endlessly.
That’s the reality, in practice – vs. your Cloverite fantasy of some mystical Greater Good.
Gil: “You don’t need to register or have licences to drive a car on your own private land. Tough luck if it’s just a quarter-acre.”
Wrong. As I previously commented on perception vs effective reality, no you cannot because that is exactly what I learned. I’ve had car ticketed for not having plates, not having a city sticker, being abandoned, and being inoperable while on my property while in good operating and cosmetic condition. Now the law stated various conditions like used on the city streets, which it wasn’t, used on the state highways, which it wasn’t, missing major parts which it wasn’t, or left unmoved parked on the street which it wasn’t (it was up against my garage in the driveway behind the line formed by the back wall of my house). It was a car I was storing for someone else. I made sure to comply with all law by reading it.
In the administrative court the government employee acting as judge proclaimed “I know the law” as he let two of the tickets stand and refused to read the copies of the law I had presented. His mindset also was that all cars are used upon the road, there is no such thing as a stored car in good working condition. Cloverite, everyone’s the same (or else) thinking.
Earlier when I talked to the cops they proclaimed the right to come on to my property to do such ticketing. This car did not leave my property, it simply was not being used except when I ran it and moved it around my driveway.
If you want to keep an unregistered car you must make it such that the government employees cannot even see that it exists. However, cities like Chicago are now going into privately owned garages to ticket. The big kind where people pay the owner to park there. But once that settles in for a few years they’ll start going into people’s individual garages too.
This is an excellent point; thanks, Brent, for bringing it up.
In our old neighborhood (suburban Northern Virginia) we had a friend who had several antique cars stored out of sight in his back yard. He had a tall perimeter fence around the entire area, which backed up to the woods. Granted, these were not running cars and in need of restoration but the relevant point (to me) was that the only way you’d ever know he had cars there would be if you were to climb his fence to take a look. The only reason I knew the cars were there was because I knew the guy and he showed them to me. No aesthetic issue (or property value issue).
So, what’s the problem?
Yet despite all that – despite the fact he was harming no one and that it was his property – the local Block Fuhrers issued him tickets, followed by threats to tow/impound his vehicles. Despicable.
It’s one of the many reasons why we no longer live in such a place.
The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
Of course the police follow policy not the law.That’s why you need to know what you are doing if you are going to exercise your RIGHT without a license. Read your Transportation Code and Rules of Criminal Procedure first.In California if you’re new to the game and get a ticket, just ask for “trial by declaration” put not guilty, if cop doesn’t respond you win.If he does you get a “trial de novo”(new trial) upon request(helpigotaticket.com).
I agree with you in principle, Tony – but the system says otherwise. I’m very familiar with the definition/meaning you reference. But that’s neither here nor there, unfortunately.
What I mean is, just as we have a natural right in principle to self-defense – the state nonetheless will prosecute you if you don’t abide by its interpretation of that right. Is it wrong in a moral sense? Of course. But just as you can talk yourself blue about, say, the way DC or Chicago has no right to take away people’s ability to possess handguns, you’re not going to get far asserting the right to travel, or that driving is other than a state-given privilege subject to whatever conditions the state wishes to impose.
It sucks – but it’s reality.
LOL! Your “definition” of self-defence? I know of people who shoot dead trespassers on sight if they could. Their private property, their rules? Once again, it’s the LOL of Libertarians say “do no harm” and then get to define when “harm” had been done which translates into “whatever I don’t like” which in turn is arbitrary for everyone.
Poor ol’ Aussie Clover… has trouble with simple concepts and plain English. “Self defense” wasn’t even mentioned in the article or subsequent posts. But since you’ve brought it up:
Shooting those who merely trespass is not warranted. But they certainly deserve to be treated as a potential threat since it’s not ureasonable to be wary of strangers on your land, who may very well be up to no good and possibly armed and up to no good. I suppose you’d offer them tea and cookies?
And if they’re trespassing inside your home? At night?
The answer to that question ought to be obvious, even to a Vegemite Cloveroni.
As to the rest:
“Harm” –
It’s a synonym for “injury.” If I injure you – if I harm you – either physically or by damaging your property – then I owe you recompense (and perhaps should be jailed, too).
But if I do you no harm? If you just don’t like what I am doing? If you merely think I may at some future point, somehow, possibly, maybe, cause you injury? Because, for instance, you “just don’t like” guns? Or you think that driving “x” miles faster than some arbitrary number plucked out of a hat is “dangerous”?
Then I owe you and your fellow Clovers nothing.
And you? You owe me just one thing: To leave me (and everyone else) be. Until we actually do something to cause you or some other person harm. Simple.
But again, it’s a concept that flies too high over the head of a Clover.
This remind of whether or not shooting guns in the air in public is harmful or not? Or juggling guns for that matter? I s’pose there nothing preventing a Libertarian from blowing smoke into a non-smoker’s face – 2nd hand smoke is harmless right? Everyone’s free to engage in high-risk dangerous behaviour as long as “no one gets hurt” even though there is a high danger of someone getting hurt? I’m sure plenty of Libertarians would love to play various game of “chicken” – frighten people into thinking they’re going to be harmed only to stop at last second and yell “psych!”. After all, no harm has been and it’s not Libertarians’ fault some people have nervous dispositions.
Just when I thought you had decided to become reasonable….
This statement of yours is typically Cloverish; hysterical, exaggerated, emoting demagoguery. You equate defending the right to keep and bear arms with “juggling guns” and “shooting guns in the air in public” – that is, you try (clumsily) to equate defending the right to keep and bear arms with handling guns irresponsibly, as though the one naturally follows from the other. No Libertarian I know defends being irresponsible about anything, especially the handling of firearms. (As an aside: You may be unaware of this, but it’s a fact – based on crime statistics – that a person who holds a concealed carry permit is less likely to be involved in the criminal misuse of a gun than a cop.)
Then your argument descends into outright childishness. Libertarians advocate blowing smoke in other people’s faces. And so on. Sad.
If that’s the best you Clovers can do, I feel optimistic about restoring sanity to the world at some point in the future.
I noticed yesterday that the images are very wide. They make everyones’ face look fat. It’s some kind of wide angle camera to pick up scars, or something on the sides of your face..?