Russell Arrested 5/29/08 for no government drivers license

[Lloyd Danforth]

Was that a question?

[J’raxis 270145]

well ive decided instead of leaving nhfree like i would normally do when infiltration by the enemy comes along i will instead use my ignore button because nhfree is recently being over run by the other team.talk will never convince me actons might if you wanna hang with the good guys you got the wrong job.

They've always been here—they're just posting now.

[J’raxis 270145]

Seems like when I was a kid, more cops weren't as anal about enforcing certain stupid stuff as they are today. I can remember a friend whose dad was a cop...he said they never had to buy beer at his house. The old man had a ready supply of confiscated alcohol he'd snag by cruising all the local teenage partying spots. He'd make you pour out the one you were drinking and take the rest home for uh "evidence".

That's the sort of corruption that would get them disciplined or fired nowadays.

[J’raxis 270145]

think of it as .... the cops have pulled the bus over .... now they are asking if we have anything in the vehicle "we shouldn't have"

I always found that to be an ironic way for the police to ask what they could arrest you for, as what you 'shouldn't' have and what is 'illegal' are seldom related.

They like to take me out of vehicles and ask me if "there's anything going on I should know about?" or if "there's something you should be telling me?" Then I have to tell them I have no drugs or illegal weapons like 5 times before they remember the answer.

What's wrong with just:—
  "Am I being detained?"
  "Am I free to go?"
  "I don't have to answer that."
  "No, I don't consent to a search."

[Giggan]

Seems like when I was a kid, more cops weren't as anal about enforcing certain stupid stuff as they are today. I can remember a friend whose dad was a cop...he said they never had to buy beer at his house. The old man had a ready supply of confiscated alcohol he'd snag by cruising all the local teenage partying spots. He'd make you pour out the one you were drinking and take the rest home for uh "evidence".

That's the sort of corruption that would get them disciplined or fired nowadays.

You can blame the courts for majorly perpetuating assholism in cops with this scenario. There was a case where a cop pulled kids over who had beer and made them dump it out and allowed them to drive off. They later that night got drunk and crashed their car. The parents sued saying the cops had a duty to arrest and won like 9$ million from the town, stolen money cause they're kid's are morons and the cop had earlier cut them a break. Goes without saying those 'justices' need be impeached.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

There is something so incredibly undignified as to have my personal abilities and intentions for the safety of myself and my loved ones constantly questioned by the "authorities".

Also Shane, you stated that driving is a "privilege" in your opinion. What right in your opinion does the government have in being the arbiter of granting the privilege of driving?

The entire premise that driving is a "privilege" is abhorrent to the principles of the people who were living here when this nation was founded! (whether native american or colonist) While I believe that no document is necessary to enumerate the unalienable rights granted to each of us by our creator, the fact is that the demands of the people living here for clarification of certain principles includes this acknowledgement:

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

Just because it isn't explicit about the Right to drive (travel), it is none-the-less "in there". The freedom to travel by the very best mode of transportation available that one can afford is fundamental... regardless of whether that mode of transportation is personal power, animal power, or mechanical power. Any pre-USA inhabitant of this continent would have either laughed their @$$ off or revolted against anyone who would have mentioned such an absurdity 200+ years ago. In fact...

The first self-propelled vehicle is documented in China in 1678. The first US patent on an automobile came in 1789 with vehicles being available and "on the road" in 1805. Modern automobiles were being mass produced in the USA by 1900. So... when do you suppose Driver's Licenses and Registrations started here?

Vehicle ID plates were first required by NY in 1901, but there was no fee or fine. Vehicle owners were expected to make their own. In 1903, Massachusetts first began requiring a state-issued registration for motor vehicles. It had nothing to do with safety. It was another form of taxation. (Some things never change  )

In late 1910, NY began requiring professional drivers (chauffeurs) to get a license, but the first state to (*supposedly) require all drivers to get a license was NJ in mid-1913... These measures were pushed through under the guise of being needed for safety. As usual, it never is about what is best for the people, but is about revenue and control.

So... From 1805 to 1903 (98 years!), there was no "requirement" for vehicle registration (and you could build your own self-propelled vehicle! novel concept! R&D!) and there weren't any problems. AND... From 1805 (actually the beginning of time) to 1913 (over a century!), there was no "requirement" to take a test and be "licensed" to operate a self-propelled vehicle.

It's a "privilege"?    Because gubermint has gotten away with murder (figuratively and literally) for a century, doesn't make it any less of a crime.

Licensing, in any form, **rarely does anything to protect "We, The People"... but it always generates massive revenues, more power and more control for the State.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*: I don't know how the law reads in NH on this, but in many States the legal definition of an "operator" or "driver" specifically states that it is someone using a motor vehicle for commercial purposes... Thus giving many liberty-minded folks a counter-argument to the gubermint's claim that they are required to obtain a driver's license. Perhaps NH doesn't have that definition, someone who has the time and resources should check. (It often isn't in the same area of the law as the statute stating there is a driver's license requirement...)

**: As evidenced by the large number of MDs and Lawyers who never lose their licenses even when people are irreparably harmed or killed! (and there are numerous examples)

[Russell Kanning]

I had a cop in Kansas tell me it (driving is a privilege) was in the us constitution. I replied that it was good then that I wasn't appealing to the constitution, since it wasn't going to help me. Maybe Homeland Security has been sending out a different version of that piece of paper.

He also told me that the reason they demand licenses is to make sure everyone has insurance. I replied that I lived in a state (NH) that didn't require it. He didn't believe that was possible.

[J’raxis 270145]

If you want to fall back on what's written in the U.S.' founding documents, the Articles of Confederation explicitly documents a right of travel. And yes, the Articles are still in effect, despite the parallel existence of the Constitution: The "perpetual union" of the Articles is how the fedgov justified legally invalidating the secession of the Confederate States in the 1860s.

[Russell Kanning]

that wouldn't have worked on that guy .... or any other cop that says driving a car is a privilege.

[John Edward Mercier]

DLs are State... not federal.
The Articles were an agreement between States. Freedom of Movement from State to State was in them.

I think the pertinent founding docs would be NH Constitution. With Part First Articles One, Three, Seven, and Twenty-Eight... along with Part Two Article Five.
These basically define the from where the authority of the State comes and to whom the authority is delegate, for what purpose, and with what limits.

[Rodinia]

well ive decided instead of leaving nhfree like i would normally do when infiltration by the enemy comes along i will instead use my ignore button because nhfree is recently being over run by the other team.talk will never convince me actons might if you wanna hang with the good guys you got the wrong job.

Jose, I'm not following you here, mate.

For example, I don't understand what you mean when you state that an individual you consider an "enemy"  who happens to be posting on an open board can be considered to have infiltrated the board.

I also have to say, I personally don't believe that we can logically insist on labeling people as the enemy and conveniently then justify discrediting anything they may consequently have to say as a result of them having been labeled. Whether  you like what that person does for a a living or not, they are a person nonetheless and thusly, until proven they no longer deserve it, ought to have the benefit of the doubt of at least having the opportunity of voicing their opinion. That you choose to isolate yourself from differing opinions makes you guilty of exactly what you label the "enemy" of being guilty of.
Just my opinion...

[Rodinia]

In addition, I'm trying to say that I don't think it's fair to discredit the opinions of an individual due to their having been "labeled" this or that. That a valid discretization of one's opinions ought to be the result of having found them to be fallacious through open discourse.

In my opinion, it doesn't seem conducive to solving anything, not to mention, I think it is absurd not to make notable the distinction that people are PEOPLE who may work for the government or other authoritarian devices, but they are people nonetheless. I don't think it is fair to judge all people who work for the government or authorities under the blanketing premise that they are all immoral. I am comfortable with absolutes, I am not comfortable with generalizations.

[Pat McCotter]

Shane's actions speak loud and clear - Russell was not hurting anyone nor damaging property nor did he appear to be breaking a law - but he still thought it proper to arrest him because he knows that Russell does not ask the state for permission to drive.

That's not "labelling." That's pointing out the facts.

[Rodinia]

Sure, but the law is the law. I'm not saying that I agree that it's a valid law and I can't recall having consented to such a law but, what I'm saying is, why is his perspective any less valid than yours? What do you have to lose by hearing his opinion and potentially engaging him in discourse?

[Rodinia]

At this point, the fact that there is a law is inconsequential to the bigger opportunity of exposing people to alternative points of view. In other words, I feel as though there is something to be lost by discrediting opinions of those who have not justly been proved to no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt.