Author Topic: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill  (Read 1681 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline saddlebum

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1694
  • Gender: Male
  • "I ain't never been killed in my life."
House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« on: November 17, 2011, 04:59:31 AM »
WASHINGTON (AP) — A state permit to carry a concealed firearm would be valid in almost every other state in the country under legislation the House passed Wednesday.
The first pro-gun bill the House has taken up this year and the first since Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., was severely injured in a gun attack in January, it had the National Rifle Association’s backing and passed by a comfortable margin. The vote was 272-154, with only seven Republicans voting against it and 43 Democrats supporting it.
 
Democrats also chided Republicans for ignoring their dedication to states’ rights. “For the Republican House majority that supposedly believes in states’ rights, this bill is shocking,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/house-passes-concealed-weapons-bill-that-would-allow-interstate-travel/
 
From what I've read, Ron Paul supporters are somewhat divided on this bill because of the states rights issue. Guess they are torn between the Constitution and states rights? 
And it seems Democrats only shout about states rights when it suits their socialist agenda.
" FIREARMS STAND NEXT IN IMPORTANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. THEY ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S LIBERTY TEETH AND KEYSTONE UNDER INDEPENDENCE."       George Washington

“OUR CONSTITUTION WAS MADE ONLY FOR A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. IT IS WHOLLY INADEQUATE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY OTHER."           John Adams

Offline BUGEYE

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10268
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2011, 05:14:18 AM »
I don't expect it to pass the senate, but if it did, it still has to go to osama/obama.
Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     Patrick Henry

Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     bugeye

Offline guzzijohn

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3037
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2011, 07:32:09 AM »
What was that? 43 democrats supported a pro carry bill! According to most pass posts on this board that cannot be. Democrats never support gun rights. You are sure they were not RINOs? :o
GuzziJohn

Offline BUGEYE

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10268
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2011, 10:37:35 AM »
What was that? 43 democrats supported a pro carry bill! According to most pass posts on this board that cannot be. Democrats never support gun rights. You are sure they were not RINOs? :o
GuzziJohn
there's elections coming up.
Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     Patrick Henry

Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     bugeye

Offline Lon371

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (53)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
  • Gender: Male
  • Why Not a Handi?
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2011, 10:42:51 AM »
What was that? 43 democrats supported a pro carry bill! According to most pass posts on this board that cannot be. Democrats never support gun rights. You are sure they were not RINOs? :o
GuzziJohn
there's elections coming up.

You could not have said it any better. Because of the elections, I could see it passing the Senate as well.
 
Lonny

Offline Pat/Rick

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2011, 12:17:25 PM »
I'm all for state's rights as well, but why does a state gooberment have the right to take away or restrict my federal rights under the second amendment, or my God given right to self defense? That very logic should mandate every out of state driver to be penalized. The WA state senators no voted last time, I'm sure they'll vote no again.

Offline jimster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2237
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2011, 12:50:09 PM »
Quote
I'm all for state's rights as well, but why does a state gooberment have the right to take away or restrict my federal rights under the second amendment, or my God given right to self defense?
That's why I am for state rights as well, it's a backup plan when the gooberment takes a wrong turn. 
Election time the people in congress grab what votes they can, they try to look progun, after elections are over it's another deal.  I personally don't trust any legislation coming from congress, even this interstate deal, who knows what they can and will tack on or control once they get their foot in the door.  I'd rather see the states talk to each other and give each other the OK for such things, keep the feds out of it.

Just don't trust em anymore, no matter the heading on the the legislation says. 
 
 

Offline jimster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2237
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2011, 09:09:56 AM »
Our representive that we recently voted in does not like this bill, and it seems the NRA is trying to bully him. 
I like Amash...he watches the feds like a hawk..won't vote for anything that they don't let him read.  According to him, this bill is tied to commerce laws...hmmmm...
Quote
The National Rifle Association is accusing U.S Rep. Justin Amash of "lying"
in seeking the group's support for his 2010 congressional bid.

Amash is
firing back, describing the NRA's attack as an example of what happens when "a
powerful special interest group is challenged by a Representative trying to
defend the constitutional rights of the American people."

But this fight
is not taking place inside the U.S. Capitol; it's playing out on
Facebook.

Amash, R-Cascade Township, was one of seven House Republicans
to vote Wednesday against a bill that would allow those with concealed handgun
permits to legally carry the weapon in any other state that also allows
concealed pistols.

The "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act" passed
the House 272-154, and now heads to the Senate.

Amash wrote on his Facebook page that he is
"life member" of the NRA, but opposed the measure on constitutional grounds. He
said it "will hurt gun rights by conceding broad new authority to the federal
government to override state sovereignty."

 
Specifically, he says the bill improperly relies on the Constitution's
Commerce Clause - providing federal authority to regulate interstate commerce -
to subvert states' rights in determining such matters. Many states already have
agreements recognizing others' concealed carry permits, including Michigan.
However, Michigan's permits are not valid in nine  concealed-carry
states.

The NRA, however, accused him of misleading the organization in
2010, when he filled out a candidate endorsement form and said he would support
such legislation.

On its Facebook page, the organization posted
his phone number and urged members to "let him know you're disappointed in him
for lying to gun owners and the  NRA."

Campaign finance records show the
NRA's Political Victory Fund gave Amash's campaign $1,000 in October
2010.

Amash responded that he supports national right-to-carry, but not
the specific bill listed on the endorsement form, which failed in 2009, or the
current bill, which the NRA says is nearly identical.

The 2009 measure
died in a House subcommittee, and a similar effort was rejected in the Senate at
a time when Democrats held majorities in both chambers. The House has since
shifted to Republicans.

Offline Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26942
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2011, 09:49:25 AM »
I don't like it either. I believe getting the feds involved in concealed carry is gonna prove to be a mistake in time.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline Old Syko

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2011, 10:21:28 AM »
I fail to see any difference in this and driving in a state other than where I'm licensed.  Tell me what I'm missing.  I feel we're overdue for more commonality in regs.  I guess if I never left home I'd understand the states rights thing more clearly, but for those of us who travel a lot it's much easier to understand the need for standardization.  Educate me on where this is wrongful thinking.   

Offline jimster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2237
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2011, 12:09:55 PM »
Quote
I fail to see any difference in this and driving in a state other than where I'm licensed.  Tell me what I'm missing.  I feel we're overdue for more commonality in regs.  I guess if I never left home I'd understand the states rights thing more clearly, but for those of us who travel a lot it's much easier to understand the need for standardization.  Educate me on where this is wrongful
thinking.
The way I look at is right now I can go to quite a few states that honor my cpl permit with no federal intervention.  After this passes, I cross the border and can fall under federal jurisdiction of some kind, add commerce laws, and who knows what they can do, or what they could add.  Commerce laws have been used by the feds for many things that are not good or not what they were intended for.  They are currently going to use them to try to win a case at the high court on their unconstitutional health care law.  In the legislation, they called it a penalty. When they go to the high court they will call it a tax under commerce laws.   

To me it just feels like the federal government is about to stick it's big toe into my state permit...doesn't feel right to me.  At the very least they would probably tax my permit somehow :o ...who knows...but it can't turn out good if it is tied to commerce laws. Who knows what the feds can do down the road once they tie into it.   There are not that many sates that won't honor my cpl, I have plenty of places I can go now.
I would have to trust our Representative from Michigan on this one, he actually read it, did not like it, and not many people read legislation these days. That's why we elected him back in 2011.  He promised he would not vote on anything he did not read, and he has kept his word so far.  He already has refused to vote once because they would not let anyone read it and wanted a real fast vote.  I personally would not trust any legislation without reading it no matter what the title said.  The title has nothing to do with what's in it or what they can do with it.
It does sound great..."interstate concealed weapons bill"....but who knows what power the feds can have with this.  I don't trust anything they do anymore no matter how good it sounds.  Maybe it's just me...I'm paranoid.  But I didn't get that overnight.


 

 

Offline Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26942
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2011, 04:38:18 PM »
Do you know of any federal law that directs states to honor driver's licenses from other states? Maybe there is one I've never heard of such.

If the feds pass this you just wait the time will come when they decide the criteria in each state must be the same and you can bet it won't be Alabama's that is the standard they use or Vermont's.

In Vermont you need nothing other than the 2nd Amendment which is as it should be. No permits to buy. In Bama if you apply and aren't a known criminal you get it, no classes, no tests, no BS. BUT ya gotta have a permit and have t renew it annually.

I figure NY or CA system will be the one the feds want to use when they decide to standardize.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline tcencore3006

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2011, 04:51:38 PM »
Graybeards right on this one.  As a New Yorker, I can tell you it is a pain in the butt with the pistol stuff.  I know a lot of people that want permits but don't have them cuz they just don't want the headache or the lighter wallets.
Newest toy? Smith & Wesson 4006

Offline quasne.inc

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2011, 02:03:48 AM »
The feds having more power of us is never a good thing.  Look how obama is running this country in the ground, supposedly for our own good.  This great country is made up of different states with different kinds of people who tend to gather together when possible, and we live in different environments.  I dont need some high falootin idiot on capitol hill telling me that all we need for self defence is a 9mm and anything more means someone is going out looking to kill someone.  You know eventually it could lead to them pulling some crap like that.

Offline Old Syko

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2011, 02:11:09 AM »

In Vermont you need nothing other than the 2nd Amendment which is as it should be. No permits to buy. In Bama if you apply and aren't a known criminal you get it, no classes, no tests, no BS. BUT ya gotta have a permit and have t renew it annually.

I figure NY or CA system will be the one the feds want to use when they decide to standardize.


As an Indiana resident the one thing I do know is that I don't want to regress to the point of the state overstepping it's bounds as Alabama has much less the likes of NY or Ca.  We are a shall issue state but don't offer a CCP as such.  We now receive a License to Carry Handgun.  It is a one time lifetime license that allows you to carry in any manner you see fit with no concealment or idiotic printing issues or any of the other craziness to deal with.   


So far all I'm reading or hearing is speculation from both sides of this.  How about some facts.  There are those who think this is good and others who think it's bad but absolutely neither side seems to offer facts.  The one deterrent that sets off my spidey senses in the number of democrats who have allowed it to go this far.  Other than this I need more info to make a determination of my own stance.  All help appreciated.

Offline Casull

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4694
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2011, 04:15:58 AM »
Quote
Do you know of any federal law that directs states to honor driver's licenses from other states? Maybe there is one I've never heard of such.

 
 
 
Quote
Article IV Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
 
US Constitution
Aim small, miss small!!!

Offline jimster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2237
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2011, 09:03:34 AM »
I found this artical interesting, I'm sure there is all kinds of opinion on if this legislation is good or not, but one thing is for certain, if the feds are involved at all, there will be audits and data bases, because that is what they ALWAYS do.  They will "oversee" these state permits...bank on it because there has never been a case where they did not do this. 
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/h-r-822-moves-to-the-senate/

Offline Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26942
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2011, 10:32:44 AM »
Quote
Do you know of any federal law that directs states to honor driver's licenses from other states? Maybe there is one I've never heard of such.

 
 
 
Quote
Article IV Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
 
US Constitution


Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see anything in there about driver's licenses?

In fact what I read into that is that all states must honor concealed carry permits from other states. Strange what we see in the US Constitution isn't it? If that works for DL then it should work equally for CCP. Nothing but the Constitution needed. In fact I'd say about 99% of the laws passed since the Bill of Rights are unneeded.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline Old Syko

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2011, 11:20:57 AM »
Quote
Do you know of any federal law that directs states to honor driver's licenses from other states? Maybe there is one I've never heard of such.

 
 
 
Quote
Article IV Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
 
US Constitution


Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see anything in there about driver's licenses?

In fact what I read into that is that all states must honor concealed carry permits from other states. Strange what we see in the US Constitution isn't it? If that works for DL then it should work equally for CCP. Nothing but the Constitution needed. In fact I'd say about 99% of the laws passed since the Bill of Rights are unneeded.


We need to keep in mind driving is a privilege regulated by the states while firearms ownership is a constitutional right.  That most states have gone down the path of overstepping their bounds by restricting gun ownership and use and done so in different fashions is a problem to be dealt with but since the above stated article and section have been ignored so far I find it hard to believe further legislation is going to change things.  Until we the people choose to actually stand up and make things right we will continue our decent into the black hole of government restraint both at federal and state levels.  Does it really matter which entity rapes us of our rights if all we're going to do is yap about it.


How do we eliminate past legislation on both levels.  This will be the key to our survival provided there is survival?  More and higher level legislation will only further restrict our rights.   

Offline Casull

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4694
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2011, 11:26:37 AM »
Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see anything in there about driver's licenses?

 
 
Well, I could certainly argue that issuance of a DL is a "public act".
 
 
 
Quote

In fact what I read into that is that all states must honor concealed carry permits from other states. Strange what we see in the US Constitution isn't it? If that works for DL then it should work equally for CCP. Nothing but the Constitution needed. In fact I'd say about 99% of the laws passed since the Bill of Rights are unneeded.

 
 
 
Therein might lie a problem.  Those who argue for State's rights will argue that the States have the right to exercise those powers not granted to the Federal Government.  In fact, one poster on here has argued that as long as the State acknowledges the right to "own" a firearm, there is no violation of the 2nd Amendment by denying all rights to "carry" a firearm (not my belief btw).  Or maybe one State acknowledges common law marriages or so-called gay "marriages", but another State does not.  Now, does the State that does not acknowledge gay "marriage" have to honor that creation when issued by another State?  As brilliant as the Founders were, they were not infallable. 
Aim small, miss small!!!

Offline Old Syko

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2011, 11:46:35 AM »
Quote
In fact, one poster on here has argued that as long as the State acknowledges the right to "own" a firearm, there is no violation of the 2nd Amendment by denying all rights to "carry" a firearm (not my belief btw).

[/size]
[/size]Problem with this thinking is the second guarantees the right to keep and bear.  To keep as in to own and to bear as to carry seems simple enough to most of us.

Offline Casull

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4694
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2011, 12:01:34 PM »
Agreed, Old Syko.
Aim small, miss small!!!

Offline yellowtail3

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5664
  • Gender: Male
  • Oh father of the four winds, fill my sails!
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2011, 02:44:02 PM »
Seems to me to be a reasonable bill to pass... but GB makes a point: what if Feds DO view NY as the standards? Or CA? Yikes...
 
Jesus said we should treat other as we'd want to be treated... and he didn't qualify that by their party affiliation, race, or even if they're of diff religion.

Offline Matt

  • .:{ş.ş}:.
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2119
  • Gender: Male
    • Inkredible Image
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2011, 07:33:12 PM »

We need to keep in mind driving is a privilege regulated by the states while firearms ownership is a constitutional right.


TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE "

1. The issue is whether this Citizen is required to obey the provisions in Michigan General Statutes. It is the contention of this Citizen that because he is a Free and Natural Person who has given up none of his "RIGHTS." That the General Statutes does not apply to him. It is also the contention of this Citizen that travels upon the streets or highways by this Citizen is an inalienable "RIGHT." Being this, is not subject to regulation or legislation by the State s General Assembly. 2. Let us first consider the contention of this Citizen that travels upon the streets or highways in is a "RIGHT." Various courts have ruled on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

2.1 The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125

 3. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:

3.1 The term "Public Highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads, streets, highways-and roadways which the public has a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.

4. The "Supreme Court" of the "State of Illinois" ruled:

4.1 Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22

"Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc., NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..

6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?

6.1 The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;

See: American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 6.2 A Citizen 's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes the right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S. E. 579, 580

 6.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways 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 RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

 7. It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the States have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large. The following are additional court decisions that expound the same facts:

7.1 . The streets and roadways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;

7.2 All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; See: State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.

 7.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, obviously differs radically from that of one who makes the highways his principal place of business and uses it for private gain ... See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.

7.4 . While a Citizen has the "RIGHT" to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that "RIGHT" does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion .... See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; See: Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; See: Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention.

8. The "Washington State Supreme Court" stated:

8.1 I am not particularly interested about the rights of haulers by contract, or otherwise, but I am deeply interested in the "RIGHTS" of the public to use the public highways freely for all lawful purposes. See: Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139

 9. The "Supreme Court of the State of Indiana" ruled in 1873:

9.1 It is not the amount of travel, the extent of the use of a highway by the public that distinguishes it from a private way or road. It is the "RIGHT" to so use or travel upon it, not its exercise. See: ? Ind 455, 461

10. 11 American Jurisprudence 1st, has this to say:

10.1 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public roadways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added) See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123

11. The "Supreme Court of the State of Georgia" ruled:

11.1 In this connection, it is well to keep in mind that, while the public has an absolute "RIGHT" to the use of the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel, the use of the streets from the purpose of parking automobiles is a privilege, and not a "RIGHT"; and the privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as the city may place as conditions to the exercise of that privilege. See: Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E.2d 135

12. The "Supreme Court of the State of Colorado" discussed the issue in the following way. 12.1 The Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, & sect; 3 provides that:

All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable "RIGHTS," among which may be reckoned the "RIGHT" .... of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; ....

12.1.1 A motor vehicle is "property" and a person "cannot be deprived" of property without due process of law. The term: "Property," within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the "RIGHT" to make full use of the property which one has the inalienable "RIGHT" to acquire.

 12.1.2 Every Citizen has an inalienable "RIGHT" to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. See: People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210

 13. The Constitution of the State of Idaho contains the words:

13.1 All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable "RIGHTS," among which are ....; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property .... (Emphasis added).

14. The words of the Idaho Constitution are to all intents and purposes identical with those of the North Carolina Constitution. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, & sect; 1, states as follows:

14.1 The equality and rights of persons. We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

14.2 To be that statutes which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. See: Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677

15. Since courts tend to be consistent in their rulings, it would be expected the Idaho Supreme Court would rule in the same manner as the North Carolina Supreme Court.

16. Other supreme authorities have arrived at similar conclusions:

16.1 The Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9:

16.1.1 The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

17. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, & sect; 36:

17.1 Other rights of the people. The enumeration of rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

18. I demand all of my other rights, including the right to travel upon the public highways and byways in the United States of America.

19. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, & sect;2:

19.1 Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

20. As member of the Sovereignty of the people, I not only am entitled to use the highways and byways in the United States of America. I have an inalienable right to use those highways and byways.

20.1 Highways are public roads which every Citizen has a "RIGHT" to use. See: 3 Angel Highways 3.

 20.2 A highway is a passage, road, or street, which every Citizen has a "RIGHT" to use. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

 21. I have emphasized the word "RIGHT" because it is a common point among the authorities listed. The Idaho Code even joins in this common point:

21.1 49-301 (13) Street or highway. -- The entire width between property lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of "RIGHT," for purposes of vehicular traffic. See: Idaho Code.

22. The "United States Supreme Court" has ruled that:

22.1 Undoubtedly the "RIGHT" of locomotion, the "RIGHT" to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the "RIGHT," ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a "RIGHT" secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution. See: Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274

 23. Thus, there can be little doubt that, when this Citizen travels upon the roadways, he does so, as a matter of "RIGHT" and not a privilege granted by the State.

The authority for such travel is described variously as a "RIGHT," a "COMMON RIGHT," an "ABSOLUTE RIGHT," an "INALIENABLE RIGHT," and a "RIGHT" protected by the "Constitution of the United States". Let us then examine the importance of these terms to this Citizen by defining their meaning.

23.1 "RIGHT" -- In law, (a) an enforceable claim or title to any subject matter whatever; (b) one's claim to something out of possession; a power, prerogative, or privilege, as when the word is applied to a corporation. See: Webster Unabridged Dictionary

23.2 "RIGHT" -- As relates to the person, "RIGHTS" are absolute or relative; absolute "RIGHTS," such as every individual born or living in this country (and not an alien enemy) is constantly clothed with, and relate to his own personal security of life, limbs, body, health, and reputation; or to his or her personal liberty; "RIGHTS" which attach upon every person immediately upon his birth, and even upon a slave the instant he lands within the same. (Emphasis added). See: 1 Chitty Pr. 32.

 23.3 "RIGHT" -- A legal "RIGHT," a constitutional "RIGHT" means a "RIGHT" protected by the law, by the Constitution, but government cannot "create" the idea of a "RIGHT" or original "RIGHTS"; it must "acknowledge" them .... (Emphasis added)See: Bouvier s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2916

23.4 Absolute "RIGHT" -- Without any condition or encumbrance as an absolute bond, simplex obligation, in distinction from a conditional bond; an absolute estate, one that is free from all manner of conditions or encumbrance. A rule is said to be absolute when, on the hearing, it is confirmed. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

 23.5 Inalienable -- A word denoting the condition of those things, the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

24. It shows from these definitions that the State has an obligation to acknowledge the "RIGHTS" of this Citizen to travel on the streets or highways. Furthermore, the State has the "duty" to refrain from interfering with this Citizens "RIGHT" and to protect this Citizens "RIGHT" and to enforce the claim of this Citizen to it.

25. Now, if this Citizen has the absolute "RIGHT" to move about on the streets or highways, does that "RIGHT" include the "RIGHT" to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways? The "Supreme Court of the State of Texas" has made comments that are an appropriate response to this question.

25.1 Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted "RIGHT" of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of these elements of property, to that extent destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the "RIGHT" of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren "RIGHT." Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in actual result proscribes its ownership. See: Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S. W. 513

26. These words of the Supreme Court of Texas are of particular importance in Idaho because the Idaho Supreme Court quoted the Supreme Court of Texas and used these exact words in rendering its decision in the case of O' Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37. The Supreme Court of Texas went on to say further;

26.1 To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The "RIGHT" to acquire and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses, so long as the use harms nobody, is a natural "RIGHT." It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen 's natural liberty -- an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of "RIGHTS." See: Spann supra.

 27. PROPERTY

27.1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines;

27.1.1 Property -- The ownership of property implies its use in the prosecution of any legitimate business which is not a nuisance in itself. See: In re Hong
 Wah, 82 Fed. 623

28. The "United States Supreme Court" states:

28.1 The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are by the express terms of that instrument made the supreme law of the land. The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law.

28.2 Property is more than the mere thing which a person owns. It is elementary that it includes the "RIGHT" to acquire, use and dispose of it. See: Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 74

These authorities point out that the "RIGHT" to own property includes the "RIGHT" to use it. The reasonable use of an automobile is to travel upon the streets or highways on which this Citizen has an absolute "RIGHT" to use for the purposes of travel. The definitions in Title 49 Chapter 3 of the Idaho Code positively declare the "RIGHT" of this Citizen to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways in Idaho.

 30. MOTOR VEHICLE OR VEHICLE?

30.1 Motor Vehicle -- Motor vehicle means a vehicle which is self-propelled or which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails. See: Idaho Code 49-301 (6)

30.2 Vehicle -- Vehicle means a device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, excepting devices moved by human power or horse drawn or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. See: Idaho Code 49-301 (14)

 30.3 Street or Highway -- Street or Highway means the entire width between property lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of "RIGHT," for purposes of vehicular traffic. See: Idaho Code 49-301 (13)

 30.4 The term "Motor Vehicle" may be so used as to include only those self-propelled vehicles which are used on highways primarily for purposes of "transporting" persons and property from place to place. See: 60 Corpus Juris Secundum & sect; 1, Page 148; See: Ferrante Equipment Co. v. Foley Machine Co., N.J., 231 A.2d 208, 211, 49 N.J. 432

 30.5 It seems obvious that the entire Motor Transportation Code and the definition of motor vehicle "are not intended" to be applicable to all motor vehicles, but applicable only to those having a connection with the "commercial transportation" of persons or property for fee. See: Rogers Construction Co. v. Hill, Or., 384 P.2d 219, 222, 235 Or. 352

 30.6 "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semi-trailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on a highway in " commercial transportation," or a combination determined by the Commission, but does not include a vehicle, locomotive, or car operated only on a rail, or a trolley bus operated by electric power from a fixed overhead wire, and providing local passenger "transportation" similar to street-railway service.
 See: Transportation, Title 49, U.S.C.A. §10102 (17)

The Constitutions of the United States and of the State guarantees this Citizen the "RIGHT" to own property. The Supreme Courts of North Carolina and Texas have affirmed that the "RIGHT" to own property includes the "RIGHT" to use it while its use harms nobody.

If that property is an automobile, it is included in the definitions of vehicle and motor vehicle in the Idaho Code Title 49 Chapter 3. And in the same Idaho Code Chapter, streets or highways are defined as the place where vehicles are used by the public as a matter of "RIGHT." Thus, it shows that this Citizen has the "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways.

31. Now, if this Citizen has the "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways, to what extent can the State regulate or diminish that "RIGHT?" There are some who would maintain that "specific performance" is required of every Citizen who uses a vehicle upon the streets or highways. Therefor, Let us examine this contention in detail.

Contract?

32. Specific performance is a term used to designate an action in equity in which a party to a contract asks the court to order the other party to carry out the contract which he has failed or refused to perform. Thus, if specific performance is expected, a contract must exist. The question then becomes: What are the "terms of the contract" and "when was it executed" and by "whom"? Since specific performance appears to be expected of every user of a vehicle on the streets or highways, the user of a vehicle seems one of the parties to the supposed contract. And since the State appears to be the party demanding specific performance, the State is the other party to the contract. So the supposed contract exists between the user of a vehicle and the State. When was this contract executed and what are its' terms? Some contend that when a user of a vehicle avails himself of the "privilege" of driving on public thoroughfares that he enters a contract with the State that requires him to abide with all the laws in the General Statutes. Others contend that the contract is executed when a driver's license is obtained. We now need to figure out what is a contract.

33. A contract may be defined as an agreement enforceable in court between two or more parties, for a sufficient consideration to do or not to do some specified thing or things. Thus, a contract has four essential features:

33.1 It "must" be an agreement.

33.2 There "must" be at least two parties to the contract.

33.3 There "must" be a consideration.

33.4 There "must" be an obligation or thing to be done.

34. Several types of contracts exist, but all must contain the essential features listed above. Contracts can be classified under three (3) principal categories:

 34.1 Express

34.2 Implied

34.3 Quasi

35. Quasi contracts, while being called contracts, are not-really contracts, and will not be considered in this particular discussion concerning contracts, but we will consider and address that issue in a separation section later.Unilateral & Bilateral Contracts

36. There can also be unilateral and bilateral contracts that is "presumed to exist" under some or all the above headings. Let us examine each above types of contracts to see if the license obtained by this Citizen falls under any of the categories of contract.

36.1 An express contract is one in which the agreement of the parties is fully stated in words, and it may be either written or oral, or partly written and
 partly oral.See: Bergh Business Law 30

36.2 A true "implied contract" is an agreement of the parties, arrived at from their acts and conduct, viewed in the light of surrounding circumstances, and not from their words either spoken or written. Like an express contract, it grows out of the intention of the parties to the transaction, and there must be a meeting of the minds.

See: McKevitt et al v. Golden Age Breweries, Inc., 126 P.2d 1077 (1942)

36.3 License - Is defined as the "Authority" to do some act or carry on some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited statute, except with the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful.See: Bouvier's Law Dict

37. With these definitions in mind, let us examine a driver's license to see if it is a contract. The driver's license itself is a small plastic card approximately 55 millimeters by 86 millimeters in size. It contains the words "Driver's license or Motor Vehicle Driver's license"; the name, address, signature, and physical description of the user; a pair or set of identifying numbers; a photograph; and the signature or stamp of the Director of the Department of Law Enforcement or the Secretary of State. Obviously, this cannot be an express agreement because there are no statements to constitute an agreement. Are there two parties to the "contract?" There is only one signature, thus there are no "parties to the contract", therefore, "a contract in invalid".

Is there a consideration? What has the State given this Citizen in return for this Citizens obligation? Some may suggest that the State has given this Citizen the privilege of driving on the streets or highways. But this Citizen already has that "RIGHT" to drive on the streets or highways, and the State cannot require this Citizen to give up a "RIGHT" to obtain a "privilege".

38. An Iowa Statute that requires that every foreign corporation named in it shall, as a condition for obtaining a permit to transact business in Iowa, stipulate that it will not remove into the federal court certain suits that it would by the laws of the United States have a "RIGHT" to a permit dependant upon the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured to it by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Barron v. Burnside, 121 U.S. 186:

38.1 The full significance of the clause law of the land is said by Ruffin, C.J. to be that statutes that would deprive a Citizen of the "RIGHTS" of person or property without a regular trial according to the course and usage of the common law would not be the law of the land. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM Dec 677

39. It would be foolish for this Citizen to exchange a "RIGHT" for a privilege since it would mean giving up valuable property in exchange for something having less value. Is it possible for this Citizen to do such a thing?

39.1 Consent -- In criminal Law. No act shall be deemed a crime if done with the consent of the party injured, unless it be committed in public, and is likely to provoke a breach of the peace, or tends to the injury of a third party; provided no consent can be given which will deprive the consentor of any inalienable "RIGHT." See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

40. Thus, even if this Citizen wanted to do so, he could not give up his "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways or exchange it for the "privilege granted by the State" of having a driver's license. Thus, in exchange for the supposed obligation of this Sovereign, the State has given nothing. Thus, there is no consideration.

It may be contended that the seal on the driver's license is sufficient consideration by the State. It is true that under the common law, the question of consideration could not be raised concerning a contract under seal.

The seal provided conclusive presumption of a consideration. North Carolina for instance, has abolished by statute the common law "presumption of consideration" and this statute is binding upon all officers and employees of the State.

Even though a seal may be present, it is "not evidence of consideration". Of course, the document in question is a contrived and copied document and lacks validity in any case as a contract.

As to an obligation, since the license contains no statement of agreement, and since there are no parties to any agreement, and since there is no consideration, there can be no obligation.

The driver's license thus, is "not a contract" since it fails to contain any of the "four essential and required features" that a contract must in fact contain.

43. Can the driver's license be an "implied contract"? The same elements must exist in an implied contract as exist in an express contract. The only difference is that an implied contract is not written or spoken and the elements of the contract are shown by the acts and conduct of the parties involved. With respect to this Sovereign, there was certainly no meeting of the minds else this brief would not result. It was never the intention of this Citizen to give up Constitutional "RIGHTS" to accept a privilege from the State. Such an action would be ridiculous. This could only be done in a socialistic state. There has been no implied agreement in a free society. Is it possible, that there were two parties to the supposed contract, i.e.-the State and this Citizen?. There was no consideration in the implied contract for the same reasons that there was no consideration in the express contract.

An obligation is the thing to be done. It may be to pay money, to do work, or to deliver goods; or it may be to refrain from doing something that the person contracting had a "RIGHT" to do. Some may say that the State was obligated to allow this Citizen to drive on the streets or highways and that this Citizen was obligated to obey all the Statutes contained in the General Statutes. It would be just as easy to say, that the State could not be obligated to allow this Citizen to travel on the streets or highways because they did not have the "RIGHT" or the power to prevent him from doing so.

45. If the State cannot prevent this Citizen from his or her travels on the streets or highways in, the State does not have any discretion in the matter and does not have the choice of whether to obligate themselves or not. Thus, the obligation of the State cannot be to grant this Citizen the privilege of travel on the streets or highways. The obligation of the State must be to refrain from prohibiting this Citizen from his travel on the streets or highways since the State does not have the "RIGHT" to do.

46. It is the contention of this Citizen that the only obligation that this Citizen incurs when using a vehicle upon the streets or highways is the Common Law obligation to refrain from any act that causes another person to lose life, liberty, or property. In complying with this obligation, this Citizen does comply with many Statutes of the General Statutes since they are, for the most part, only common sense rules by which this Citizen avoids doing damage to others.

47. Still, some Statutes of the General Statutes should not be construed as evidence of a contractual obligation by this Citizen. Neither should it be construed to all the Statutes of the General Statutes or to any of them always. Instead, it is merely evidence of a want of this Citizen to travel safely and to do harm to no one.

48. Thus, the actions of this Citizen do not supply unambiguous evidence of a contract with the State. Instead, the actions can, with equal weight, be said to be evidence of a material fact that this Citizen was complying with the common law requirement in that-he does harm to no one. The driver's license is not an implied contract because there is no consideration, there may possibly be two parties, but there is certainly no consideration, in addition, there is no clear evidence of an obligation. Three of the four elements necessary for a contract of any kind whatsoever, are missing.

49. The question now becomes, whether the driver's license application is a contract. In completing that document/form, the applicant makes several statements and signs the paper upon which these statements are written under oath. The statements concern the identity, physical description, address, ability and experience in operating a vehicle, and one statement on the physical condition of the applicant. None of the statements are as an
 agreement.

50. The application form contains the signature of the applicant and the signature of the person taking the oath of the applicant. The reverse side of the Application contains the results of a vision test and rudimentary physical examination with the results of a driving test. These results are signed by the examiner and not by the applicant.

 51. Thus the application takes the form of an Affidavit instead of a contract. But let us see if the elements of a contract are present in the application.

 51.1 There is no agreement.

51.2 There are not two parties.

51.3 There is no consideration.

51.4 There is no obligation.

52. Since none of the necessary elements of a contract are present, the application does not constitute a contract.

53. The only other document involved in obtaining a driver's license is the document, part of which is copied to make the actual driver's license. It contains, besides the information that is used in making the driver's license, the results of a vision test conducted by the driver's license examiner.

 54. The applicant places his signature upon this form, that is then copied by some photographic process. Other material is added including a photograph, signature of the Director of the Department of Law Enforcement or the Secretary of State and the driver's license is made of this composite.

55. Thus, the license itself cannot be a contract because it is a contrived document. The form from which the driver's license is made cannot be a contract because, again, none of the elements of a contract are present. So if none of the documents executed by the driver when obtaining a license is a contract, then no contract can exist between the driver and the State as a result of obtaining a driver's license.

56. But the idea that the driver's license is a contract with the State is pervasive. It is a belief, that is strongly held even by people in high places. Therefore, let us examine the driver's license as if it were a contract and see if it can withstand scrutiny. Not every offer made by one party and accepted by the other creates a valid contract. The outward form of a contract, either oral or written may exist, and yet the circumstances may be such that no contract in
 reality was never created. Some circumstances that will cause an apparently valid contract to in fact be "void" are:

56.1 Mistake either mutual or unilateral.

56.2 Fraud.

56.3 Duress.

56.4 Alteration.

57. This Citizen obtained a driver's license upon the representation by the State, that one's travel upon the roadways of the United States of America was a privilege. This Citizen accepted this representation as to be true and because of that representation did obtain a driver's license.

57.1 It has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt, that an individual's travel is a "RIGHT" and not a privilege. Thus, a mutual mistake has been made, and the "contract" is void. See: Deibel v. Kreiss, 50 N.E.2d 1000 (1943)

 But the General Assembly of the State who passed the Statutes contained in the General Statutes are knowledgeable persons, many of whom are lawyers, and they undoubtedly knew at the time that the law was passed, that an individual's travel was in fact a "RIGHT" and not a privilege. If this were the case, then the mistake would be unilateral. A unilateral mistake known to one party and not to the other party, is sufficient grounds to void a contract if one truly exists.

59. Fraud

59.1 Fraud may consist in conduct, and may exist where there are no positive representations. Silence, where honesty requires speech, may sometimes constitute fraud. The rule that a man may be silent and safe, is by no means a universal one. Where one contracting party knows that the other party is bargaining for one thing, he has no "RIGHT" by silence to deceive the other and suffer him to take an altogether different thing, from that for which that silence has bargained. See: Parish v. Thurston, 87 Ind. 437 (1882)

60. If the driver's license is a contract, a case can be made for the contention that it was an agreement obtained by the State by fraud.

60.1 Fraud is a generic term which embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can devised, and are resorted by one individual to get any advantage over another. No definite and invariable rule can be laid down as a general proposition defining fraud, as it includes all, trickery, cunning, surprise, dissembling, and unfair ways by which another is deceived. See: Wells v. Zenz, 236 P. 485

61. With respect to contracts, the following statements can be made:

61.1 However, in the field of contracts, there are certain standard tests for a claim of fraud which make it possible to define fraud, in connection with a contract as any trick or artifice whereby a person by means of a material misrepresentation, creates an erroneous impression of the subject matter of a proposed transaction, and thereby induces another person to suffer damage computable in money. The misrepresentation may result from a false statement, a concealment, or a nondisclosure. The elements of a contractual fraud are the following:

61.1.1 A material misrepresentation created, by a statement, by a concealment, or by nondisclosure.

61.1.2 An intention to defraud. 61.1.3 Reliance on the representation by the defrauded party.

 61.1.4 Damage caused to the defrauded party as the result of his acting upon the representation. See: Bergh Business Law p. 56.

 62. In view of the many decisions by high courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, that one's travel is a "RIGHT" and not a privilege, would be hard to defend the proposition that the General Assembly of the State was unaware of these decisions, particularly since many legislators are and were lawyers knowledgeable in such matters. In fact, when one considers the definition of streets or highways in Sections of the General Statutes, the Evidence is conclusive that the legislature knew and knows that ones travels is in fact a "RIGHT."

63. Therefore, the statements in the General Statutes that a travel is a privilege and that a driver's license is necessary before one can travel constitutes a "material misrepresentation of fact" to this possessor of a driver's license. And since the legislature is and was aware of the fact that an individual's travels was not a privilege, but a "RIGHT," the statement that one's travels is a privilege, when applied to this Citizen, constitutes a willful intention to deceive, and therefore, to defraud.

 64. This Citizen did rely upon the representations of the legislature, that an individual's travels was a privilege when he obtained his driver's license, else he would not have obtained one.

 65. This Citizen did suffer damage as a result of his acting upon the representation of the legislature at least to the extent of the license fee.

In as much as all the necessary elements of fraud are present, if the driver's license is considered a contract, the "contract" is void.

DURESS

67. With respect to duress, Bergh, supra., supplies the following definition:

67.1 A party must consent to a contract of his own free will. Free consent is an essential element of an agreement. Consequently, if he is coerced into signing a contract by fear induced by a threat to cause personal injury to himself or to some close relative, the contract will not be a real agreement and it will be voidable at his option. The threat of personal injury must be a threat to inflict immediate bodily injury or to institute a criminal prosecution against the person threatened or some close relative.

68. Since it was essential to this Citizen in pursuing his occupation of common "RIGHT" to use a vehicle upon the streets or highways, and since the State threatens to and does prosecute persons in criminal actions for not possessing a driver's license, regardless of their status, this Citizen did obtain a driver's license under duress. If then the driver's license is a contract, the contract is unenforceable and invalid because of this duress.

69. With respect to alterations, Bergh, supra., has the following comments:

69.1 Any material alteration in a written contract by one party without the consent of the other party, gives this latter party the option of treating the contract as discharged or enforcing it as it stood before the alteration.

70. If the driver's license is a contract, it is a written contract, at least to the extent that the Statutes of the General Statutes are written. Each time that the General Assembly amends or modifies or adds to any of the Statutes of the General Statutes, the terms of the contract are changed. Since this Citizen then has the option of considering the contract as discharged, he then chooses to do so as of the first change in the General Statutes following his application for a driver's license.

If it is contended that the driver's license is an implied contract, the "Statute of Frauds" comes into play.

72. In the following cases the agreement is invalid, unless the same or some note or memorandum of it, be in writing and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent. Evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing or secondary evidence of its contents:

72.1 An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof.

72.2 ............. 73. Since the term of the driver's license contract is so many years and the contract is not written, the "Statute of Frauds" does apply
 and the contract is unenforceable.

74. The discussion up to this point has been concerned with bilateral contracts in which each party promises something to the other party. Is it possible that the driver's license is a unilateral contract? A unilateral contract is described as:

74.1 A unilateral contract is a one-sided contract in the sense that only one side makes a promise, and the other side performs an act for which the promise was given. See: Bergh, supra..

75. Since the act expected by the State is obedience to the Statutes of the General Statutes, what promise has the State offered in exchange for this act? The only promise that the State could make this Citizen, is the promise to allow him to travel on the streets or highways. Since this Citizen already can do that as a matter of "RIGHT," the State can promise him nothing. Thus there is no consideration and a unilateral contract cannot exist.

Having shown that no contract exists between this Citizen and the State, let us now examine, the proposition that a quasi-contract exists between this Citizen and the State.

 77. Quasi-Contract

77.1 A quasi-contract is an obligation springing from voluntary and lawful acts of parties in the absence of any agreement. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

78. In order to establish the existence of a quasi-contractual obligation it must be shown:

78.1 That the defendant has received a benefit from the Plaintiff.

78.2 That the retention of the benefit by the Defendant is inequitable. See: Woodward Quasi Contracts 9.

79. Thus, if it is contended that this Citizen must obey the Statutes in the General Statutes because of a quasi-contract, it must be shown that this Citizen has received a benefit from the State. But one's travels on the streets or highways of the State is not a benefit received from the State. It was a "RIGHT" that attached to this Citizen at the moment of his birth and cannot be removed by the State. In this respect, no benefit has been received from the State, and thus a quasi-contractual obligation cannot exist with respect to this Citizen.

80. It may be claimed that the Statutes of the General Statutes are made pursuant to the police powers of the State, and that every person in the State is obligated to obey them.

81. The police power is a grant of authority from the people to their governmental agents, for the protection of the health, the safety, the comfort and the welfare of the public. In its nature, it is broad and comprehensive. It is a necessary and salutary power, since without it, society would be at the mercy of individual interest and there would exist neither public order or security. While this is true, it is only a power. It is not a "RIGHT?"

 82. The powers of government under our system, are nowhere absolute. They are but grants of authority from the people, and are limited to their true intentional purposes. The fundamental "RIGHTS" of the people are inherent and have not yielded to governmental control. They are not the subjects of governmental authority. They are subjects of individual authority. Constitutional powers can never transcend Constitutional "RIGHTS." The police power is subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, and upon every power of government and its agents; and it will not be suffered to invade or impair the fundamental liberties of the Citizens, whose natural "RIGHTS" that are the chief concern of the Constitution and for whose protection it was ordained by the people.

82.1 To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The "RIGHT" to acquire and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses, so long as that use harms nobody, is a natural "RIGHT." It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It plainly and clearly
 existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen 's natural liberty -- an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of "RIGHTS" that we have all sworn to uphold, fight, and give our lives for.

82.2 It is not a "RIGHT," therefore, over which the police power is paramount. Like every other fundamental liberty, it is a "RIGHT" to which the police power is subordinate.

 82.3 It is a "RIGHT" which takes into account the equal "RIGHTS" of others, for it is qualified by the obligation that the use of the property shall not be to the prejudice of others. But if subject alone to that qualification, the Citizen is not free to use his lands and his goods as he chooses, it is difficult to perceive wherein his "RIGHT" of property has any existence. (Emphasis added). See: Spann, supra..

83. Where inherent, unalienable, absolute "RIGHTS" are concerned, the police powers can have no effect. The "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways and the "RIGHT" to own and use property have been described as inherent, unalienable, and absolute. Thus, the police power cannot regulate the Citizens "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways.

84. If the police power of the State is permitted to regulate the travels of the Citizen on the streets or highways, and if, through the action of these regulations or Statutes, this Citizen is denied access to the streets or highways; a fundamental "RIGHT" of the Citizen has been abrogated.

84.1 Where "RIGHTS" secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. See: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)

85. The abrogation of inalienable "RIGHTS" by legislation or rule making is unconstitutional.

86. If further proof is needed to show that this Citizen need not be licensed to travel on the streets or highways, it is provided in the following decisions:

86.1 A license fee is a tax. See: Parish of Morehouse v. Brigham, 6 So. 257

86.2 A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a "RIGHT" granted by the Federal Constitution. See: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105

Since a fee is charged for a driver's license and since one's travels on the streets or highways is a "RIGHT" guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and by the LAW OF NATURE, it is not constitutional for the State to require this Citizen to be licensed to travel.

 88. Even the application for Driver's License Form recognizes the "RIGHT" of some persons to travel without a license. General Statutes recognizes categories of persons who are not required to be licensed in this State. Why is it then that the first demand made by the law enforcement personnel when making a traffic stop is:

"Let's see your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance," and not always politely, when the first question should be; "What is your status and are you required to have a driver's license?"

89. Can it be, that there is a conspiracy afoot within the State, to reduce all Citizens to a status of contract? Why else would a law enforcement person take a Citizen to jail without even trying to discover if that Citizen is exempt from the requirement of having a driver's license?

90. The question now becomes, whether this Citizen is required to obey any of the Statutes in the General Statutes? It has been shown that this Citizen has a "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways. So, any Statute that describes driving on the streets or highways as a privilege cannot apply to this Sovereign. Since the "RIGHT" of this Citizen to travel cannot be abrogated, any Statute the operation of which, would have the effect of denying access to the streets or highways to this Citizen, cannot be applied.

 91. Since violation of any Statue in the General Statutes is classified as a "misdemeanor" that is punishable by a fine and six months in jail, and since putting this Citizen in jail because of his use of the streets or highways that harms nobody, would be an abrogation of his "RIGHT" to travel, none of the Statutes of the General Statutes apply to this Citizen. These contentions are supported by the "Supreme Court of United States".

91.1 An Iowa statute that requires that every foreign corporation named in it shall as a condition for obtaining a permit to transact business in Iowa, stipulate that it will not remove into the federal court certain suits that it would by the laws of the United States have a "RIGHT" to remove, is void because it makes the "RIGHT" to a permit dependent upon the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured to it by the Constitution and laws of the United States. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Barron v. Burnside, 121 U.S. 186

This decision is consistent with that in Miranda, supra, in which it was stated that where "RIGHTS" are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. It is also consistent with the discussion in the following case. This case is a tax case, but the discussion on "RIGHTS" that it contains is appropriate.

93. Individual and a Corporation

93.1 There is a clear distinction in this particular, between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no "RIGHT" to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional "RIGHTS" as a Citizen . He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His "RIGHTS" are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his "RIGHTS" are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their "RIGHTS". See: Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43

94. The Emphasized statement is also consistent with North Carolina Statutes. In the Statute reads:

94.1 Common law in force. The common law of England, as far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States in all cases not provided for in these compiled laws, is the rule of decision in all courts in this state

.95. Since the Statutes of the General Statutes cannot apply to this Citizen, he becomes subject to the "Common Law" that maintains that he owes nothing to thepublic, so long as he or she does not trespass upon their "RIGHTS".

96. Is it the contention of this Citizen that because the Statutes contained in the General Statutes do not apply to him that the Statutes are unconstitutional? Absolutely not. There is a class of persons to whom these Statutes apply without reservation. Members of this class include corporations and those who do the corporation business on the streets or highways. A corporation is the creation of the State.

96.1 A corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises and holds them, subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its "RIGHTS" to act as a corporation are only preserved to it while it obeys the laws of its creation. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914 p. 684

97. A Corporation is a person in the eyes of the law but it lacks character, morals, and has no conscience. It's every activity must be directed and supervised by the State. Under the definition of "Due Process of Law", Bouvier's Law Dictionary states in part:

97.1 The liberty guaranteed is that of a natural person and not of artificial persons; Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359 where it was said "a corporation cannot be deemed a Citizen within the meaning of the clause of the Constitution of the United States which protects the privileges and immunities of Citizen s of the United States against being abridged or impaired by the law of a State". (See also 203 U.S. 243)

The Statutes in the General Statutes are designed to direct the activities of the class of persons of which a corporation is a member. Corporations are absolutely bound by these Statutes. It is imperative that a conscienceless entity not be allowed to roam the streets or highways and jeopardize the Citizens. It is for this purpose that the Statutes of the General Statutes were enacted and not for the control of a Free and Natural Citizen.

Conclusion

99. There is no Court in this Land that could lawfully execute an Order that would or could cause, or work to compel, One to become a servant or slave of any City, County or State without a conviction and with full Due Process of Law, and for any City, County, or State to pretend otherwise is an absurdity.

Have a great day

Richard James, McDonald
 ICQ 259224
 http://www.state-citizen.org Join our Citizenship Educational program

 Voice: [818] 703-5037 Richard James McDonald
 Fax: [818] 887-3217 C/O General Delivery
 585 Box
 Canyon Road, Canoga Park [91304]
 CALIFORNIA
Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”
― Albert Einstein

Offline Casull

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4694
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2011, 02:08:24 AM »
That was quite a ramble.
Aim small, miss small!!!

Offline Old Syko

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
  • Gender: Male
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2011, 03:51:42 AM »
That was quite a ramble.


True and to no conclusion.  Merely a collection of out of context snippets of case law.  If you research the cases some of these excerpts came from you discover they take on a completely different context.   

Offline jhm

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3169
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #26 on: November 20, 2011, 06:39:01 AM »
I usually dont read LONG post and that one is NO exception!!!   Jim

Offline saddlebum

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1694
  • Gender: Male
  • "I ain't never been killed in my life."
Re: House Passes Interstate Concealed Weapons Bill
« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2011, 08:21:16 AM »
I usually dont read LONG post and that one is NO exception!!!   Jim

Me too, usually. I read a bit, trying to find relevance to the topic and got bored and gave up pretty quick.
Think I have ADD....................... :(
" FIREARMS STAND NEXT IN IMPORTANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. THEY ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S LIBERTY TEETH AND KEYSTONE UNDER INDEPENDENCE."       George Washington

“OUR CONSTITUTION WAS MADE ONLY FOR A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. IT IS WHOLLY INADEQUATE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY OTHER."           John Adams