Drivers Licenses and the 2A

[JCF]

I had a conversation recently with a 2A supporter who felt quite strongly, like many of us, that firearm registration, mandatory training, etc., does nothing to halt access to weapons by criminals, and in fact does little more than provide a means for control and subjugation of the law-abiding gun-owner.

However...

He went a step further and noted that in fact, mandatory driver licensing, vehicle registration, social security numbers, birth registration, selective service registration, etc., are also infringements on the rights of the free citizen, and potential vehicles toward the violation of the 2A. He argued, that criminals of course do not bother with driver licensing, registration, etc...

If examined at face value, there is little question that one's D/L and SSN are perhaps the greatest compromise to their true anonymity. And it is true that unlawful drivers, etc. do not concern themselves with these little details.

What do you all think?

 

[pacodelahoya]

I think that social security itself is slap in the face to the very Ideals this country was founded on. Why should I have to pay for someone who is sick, handicapped or just plain lazy? Therefore, I am against ssn. As for drivers licenses? While I don't like that we should have to get permission to travel, I really don't see anyway around it as far as ensuring that people are capable of driving relatively safley. then again, if someone really wants to drive, they are gonna drive ie multiple dui offenders. Ok, I guess I am pretty much all for anarchy.

 

[thexrayboy]

Point number one, driving and automobiles are not mentioned specifically in the constitution. To equate registration and control of autos and drivers to arms is casting a fairly wide net.

Point two. You do not need to register your vehicle or to get a DL to drive your vehicle.....unless you drive on the open road. You do not need a permit to buy a vehicle, there is no age limit to drive....unless you drive on the open road.

The comparison between the two is a poor one at best. Goverments do not
generally restrict people from driving what they want, when they want and where they want. Goverment frequently restricts people regarding what gun they can buy, how often they can buy them, where they can take them and
frequently if they are even allowed to have them.

Apples and oranges for the most part.

As for the government being Big Brother and keeping tabs on us. They don't stop at DL's and SSN's. They now have
the capacity to data mine your purchases via credit card etc and even keep tabs on what you buy. It's all about control
of the resources...I mean citizenry. The push is to get away from a cash economy as much as possible to increase
control of fiscal resources. It's harder to tax cash deals than other kinds and as we all know a main rule of power is
having the money needed to wield that power.

 

[Erebus]

While you are free to travel there is nothing in the constitution to indicate that methods of travel can't be regulated. You can always buy some new shoes and foot train it to anywhere you want to go.

Congress has the right levy taxes, Social Security not being a tax should not be mandatory. Those that wish to contribute should be allowed to do so and draw benefits when needed. Those that don't wish to contribute should be allowed to but should not be entitled to any benefits either.

Self Defense is a natural right and it is recognized and guarenteed in the Constitution. Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says, no limitations, no regulations, no requirements.

 

[RevolvingCylinder]

Point two. You do not need to register your vehicle or to get a DL to drive your vehicle.....unless you drive on the open road. You do not need a permit to buy a vehicle, there is no age limit to drive....unless you drive on the open road.

Public roads.

Driving isn't a right listed specifically in the Constitution as "shall not infringe". You can own a car and drive it at any age. No one here has ever had a field car?

 

[Kali Endgame]

The Federalized driving license will be the law of the land by 2011, if I'm not mistaken.

thexrayboy is spot on with the cash analysis.

The government is like a guard dog; good for certain situations, but you don't want them is the house with your kids. Limited central government was one of the issues the Founding Father pushed.

We started out as a Republic and have slipped into an oligarchy. Every journey begins with a single step, and so does the erosion of personal rights.

 

[geekWithA.45]

My thinking is that driving is an instrumentality of the fundamental, widely accepted, but constitutionally unenumerated right of travel.

Unfortunately, our society unwisely accepted the premise that driving was a privilege when it was a rich man's game, impacting few people, before it became a de facto economic and social necessity, and that is a horse that fled that barn 100 years ago.


And speaking of horses, which was the most immediate predecesor to the private car, I am not aware of any sort of driver's license being required anywhere to ride a horse, or a horse and cart.

Usually, at this point, people start talking about drunk and otherwise chronically unsafe drivers. Like any other fundamental right, it can be restricted, for just cause.


xrayboy's 2nd point, that one needn't register a car, or show drivers license to buy one is not true, for all practical purposes, in every state I've bought, sold or given a car away in.


Finally, whenever driver's licenses and RKBA are talked about at the same time, someone will inevitably bring up the driver's license/gun license comparison. That comparison isn't the right one. The correct comparison is RKBA and voting.

 

[Al Norris]

While you are free to travel there is nothing in the constitution to indicate that methods of travel can't be regulated.

If the power is not enumerated, it is forbidden to the federal government... At least that was the original theory. The 10th amendment backs that up.

The federal government may regulate intrastate commerce. Private travel (travel for personel reasons) is not commerce. The State governments may regulate intrastate commerce. Private travel is not commerce.

The right to travel is a fundamental right. “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. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958). “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. Further, “It is well-established law that the highways of the state are public property; and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes...” Stephenson v. Binford 287 U.S. 251, 264, et al.

I spent a couple of years researching this particular topic. The right to travel is a fundamental right. But look where we are today! The restrictions placed upon this right did not happen overnight. The same with all the restrictive gun laws. If we aren't careful, we can see the RKBA turned into something much worse... Outlawed entirely.

 

[tmajors]

Driving is a privilege as opposed to a right, and a privilege that quite frankly is not revoked enough.

Social Security is unconstitutional and illegal. I'm not gonna bother going into it here, too long and not related to guns enough to have a place here.

 

[Autolycus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States

From the Wikipedia Link Posted above:

In the United States, no specific law guarantees this right, but the Supreme Court of the United States has held in a number of cases that such a right necessarily exists. In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), the United States Secretary of State had refused to issue a passport, based on the suspicion that the plaintiff was going abroad to promote communism. Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Court:

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. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the right of interstate travel most recently in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV, §2), and for those who become permanent residents of a state, the right to be treated equally to native born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause).

The issue of freedom of movement has received new attention in the United States as of 2004; in particular, concerning the methods and internal practices of the Transportation Security Administration.[citation needed]

Another issue of contention deals with freedom of movement across U.S. national borders. The United States has long been lax in permitting persons to cross from Canada into the United States. Concerns about drug trafficking and illegal immigrants seeking employment have led to much stricter controls on those crossing the border from Mexico.

I think that we do have a right to travel uninhibited myself.

 

[Frog48]

If the power is not enumerated, it is forbidden to the federal government... At least that was the original theory. The 10th amendment backs that up.

The federal government may regulate intrastate commerce. Private travel (travel for personel reasons) is not commerce. The State governments may regulate intrastate commerce. Private travel is not commerce.

You hit the nail on the head.

The general public has been brainwashed/conditioned into thinking of many RIGHTS as "privileges".

 

[cuchulainn]

About Roads

For better or worse, We The People have granted the governemnt the power to build and run the roads.

Grant a power to the government? Expect your liberties to be affected in that area.

Don't want to register your car? Don't want a license? Drive only on private roads.

I'm not supporting or opposing public roads in this post -- just pointing out the way it is.

Incidentally, however, given that the Constitution grants the govt. the power to build Post Roads, we can conclude that the Framers saw wisdom in granting such powers to the government.

Further, road building/upkeep is a legitimate and necessary military power. That's how and why the Interstate Highway System got built.

 

[Al Norris]

For better or worse, We The People have granted the governemnt the power to build and run the roads.

They are Public raods, built with Public funds.

“It is well-established law that the highways of the state are public property; and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes...” Stephenson v. Binford 287 U.S. 251, 264, et al.

“It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state.” Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 547.

Driving is a privilege as opposed to a right, and a privilege that quite frankly is not revoked enough.

“No state government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation, i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurance.” Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.

“Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with public interest and convenience.” ibid at 206.

“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.” ibid at 221.

Don't want to register your car? Don't want a license? Drive only on private roads.

“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.

“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.

“A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family.” Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 (S.D. NY 1884).

“The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.” Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).

The only real and legal distinction made (by the Courts) is one of personal use and commercial use.

The only real distinction of registering your vehicle or obtaining a Drivers License, is that you have bought into a state controlled method of revenue raising, by attesting that you are driving as a commercial endeavor and can therefore be regulated.

“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (1963) 373 U.S. 262.

In Marchetti v. U.S., 390 US 39,57; See v Seattle, 387 US 541, the Court reiterated what it said in U.S. v Miller, “The exercise of a constitutional right cannot be the basis of a crime.”

I suspect that the NFA could be attacked along the same lines, once Parker is upheld and becomes precedent.

 

[cuchulainn]

Al Norris,

I'm neither defending nor attacking public roads.

Nor did I make any comment about the right-vs-privilege debate.

Rightly or wrongly, we've delegated to the government the power to build, maintain, control and regulate the roads. We did this at the founding by giving the federal government power over the Post Roads. We did this at the state and local levels through whatever mechanisms were required there.

Governments regulate the things they control. We've granted such control. It simply seems silly to me to complain about it.

Don't want regulation? Don't drive on public (i.e. government-run) roads.

Or figure out a way to divorce "public road" from "government-run road." There have been some attempts to do that, including Virginia's "Greenway," but to little overall effect. (And I'm not at all certain that having a road controlled by a non-U.S. company is preferable to one controlled [and, yes, regulated by] the government).

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

We Have NOT Given Power To The Feds To Govern Roads.

Congress has been given power to establish Post Roads, but no power to govern travel upon them. Post roads are not the same as land purchased by the United States and used for the Seat of the Government of the United States, or for land also purchased for forts, arsenals, magazines, dock-yards, etc.; the governance of which is spelled out to be in the purview of Congress. The Commerce Clause does not provide power to Congress to govern travel upon post roads, either. Any such governance is a usurpation of power, or, as is Congress's penchant, a matter of bribing the several states with money if those states will enact a rule or law Congress wants but is not in its power to enact.(The old 55 MPH speed limit was one such case of Congress bribing or coercing the states into compliance.)

Driver's licenses are recognized state to state via an agreement between the states that has been approved by Congress as required by Article I, Section 10, Clause (3). So, technically, reciprocity agreements between states must be approved by Congress. A law passed in a state that recognizes the permit from another or other states(such as in Oklahoma) does not require congressional approval, same as if you go visit Alaska or Vermont, you can carry a gun there without a permit.

Woody

There is no "difference" between gun control and gun rights. Gun control seeks to put bounds upon, and effect the possible elimination of, our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't be led astray with the inference that it is "gun" control or "gun" rights. The rights in discussion are rights of the people. Human rights! Guns are inanimate objects; tools of freedom and self defense. Dehumanizing the discourse tends to lessen the impact of discussion from what it would be - were it directed at the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE being infringed - and attempts to remove it from the strict scrutiny of the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[WayneConrad]

Travel, intrastate or interstate, is indeed a right. It's one of the uncountable rights alluded to by the ninth amendment. That we would come to think that only the enumerated rights existed was one of the fears of those opposed to the bill of rights. We can see that their fear was not unfounded.

What good is the right of assembly if you cannot travel to the place of assembly?

What good is the right to a free press if you have no right to travel to either fetch or deliver a publication?

A freedom that is necessary to exercise an enumerated right is necessarily also a right.

 

[cuchulainn]

woodcdi: Congress has been given power to establish Post Roads, but no power to govern travel upon them.

Well, few roads are "Post Roads" (are there any truly left?) -- most are maintained by states and localities. I mentioned Post Roads simply to illustrate that even the Framers were confortable with some level of government power related to the roads, not to justify road laws.

I'm not supporting (or attacking) road laws. I'm simply pointing out that, rightly or wrongly, We the People have ceded power in this area to the various governments. It thus seems silly to complain when the governments do what governments do: govern/regulate/control.

WayneConrad: Travel, intrastate or interstate, is indeed a right. It's one of the uncountable rights alluded to by the ninth amendment.

Yes it is. But don't confuse "travel" with "operation of a vehcle on a state-maintained road."

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Driving is a privilege as opposed to a right, and a privilege that quite frankly is not revoked enough.

Can you prove that or is it just your opinion? On what do you base this assertion?

Social Security is unconstitutional and illegal. I'm not gonna bother going into it here, too long and not related to guns enough to have a place here.

Where in the Constitution does it say the government can not have a Social Security program?

 

[Tim James]

Back to the original topic, this is another false dichotomy. It's so easy to get tunnel vision and think that since we already have licenses and numbers for everything, why not do it for guns? Not only are guns different (as written by others here in this thread), one ought to examine the entire premise of licensing.

Same with the stupid VA paper publishing the CCW list: they portray it is an issue of privacy rights vs. the important duty to monitor one's government. Better to take the third way: end government involvement in licensing and there's nothing to monitor and there are no more inconsistencies.

 

[rmurfster]

As much as I agree that travel is a fundamental right, not a privilege, I can also see cuchulainn's point.

If the State or County wouldn't maintain our roads, who would? Would our cars operate on unmaintained dirt roads?

If we want the County and/or State to maintain our roads, it seems we have to negotiate some means for them to do it.

The means we have "agreed" upon is that we purchase licenses to fund the maintenance of our roads.

I don't like it. I don't agree with it. But I think that is what happened.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Cuchulainn,

Nothing big here, just an observation or two.

One thing that might help is to realize that we have only ceded one power completely to government and that is the judicial power. If you take a look at Atricle I, Section 8, it begins, "The Congress shall have Power..." and not "The Congress shall have THE power...". Contrast that to Article III where the judical power - THE judicial power - is vested in one supreme Court. That is the only power we the people ceded completely(except for our participation as a juror, that is).

Congress is not the only entity that can make roads(or call forth the militia, and a few others). Some of those powers have been specifically forbidden to the states, but none have been forbidden to the people. We share all those powers with government. But, government sometimes "forgets".

Woody

 

[Al Norris]

I gave the court cases that maintain that the method of travel is relevent to the fundamental right itself. I gave the Court cases that stated that the right to travel cannot be restricted more than is necessary (traffic laws). All cases cited were SCOTUS; Circuit Court or State Supreme Court decisiions.

I gave a link to my essay on this subject. An essay that ties together the various court cases and shows you do not have to accept the States regulatory methods, if you are not a common carrier, or some other form of commercial endeaver.

To those that still think the State have the authority to demand you register a non-commercial vehicle, or license a non-commercial driver, show me the cases that say this.

Quid pro Quo.

Once Parker is sustained by the SCOTUS, and becomes binding precedent, I suggested that the same cases may be used as regards some of the various gun control laws.

That's how this all ties together.

 

[JCF]

Back to the original topic, this is another false dichotomy. It's so easy to get tunnel vision and think that since we already have licenses and numbers for everything, why not do it for guns? Not only are guns different (as written by others here in this thread), one ought to examine the entire premise of licensing.

Although this angle has obviously been explored ad nauseum by proponents of gun control, this was not the position of the individual making the statement in the conversation I described in the OP. He was a 2A supporter.

I should have perhaps been less specific in titling the thread, as it has somewhat directed the conversation I am afraid.

The person I was referring to suggested that licenses and permits of most forms are little more than implements toward the subjugation of the populace, regardless of their presentation as mechanisms of public protection.

While I agree and understand that there is no Constitutional affordance of protection for the right to operate a motor vehicle sans license, I have also observed that a great many persons on this forum have extended a great many different issues to represent infringements (or potential mechanisms thereof) of their 2A rights.

For example;

A recent thread regarding law enforcement's use of a license plate recognition system was met with virulent opposition from individuals who felt quite strongly that such an initiative would represent a significant threat to 2A rights.

Others of us feel that illegal immigration is a tangible threat to 2A rights.

Many posters feel that there is no room for compromise whatsoever. None.

Many posters feel that reasonable accomodations rarely are.

The individual whom I am describing has stated that, in essence, if one is to interpret the 2A literally, any method of imposition which represents potential infringement shall be eschewed.

Any method. Period.

Now... if one is to synthesize this situation to its' base, there is absolutely no question that the number 1 and 2 means of tracking any law-abiding individual in this nation is, interchangeably, his or her driver's license (or state ID) and SSN. Now I am not about to begin advocating abandonment of driver regulation, but regardless of how one feels about the situation, these are likely the greatest compromises of personal anonymity in existence (in America in any event).

Further, as he pointed out, building permits, business licenses, professional licenses, etc., are useful means only of regulating those who choose to subject themselves to their authority. These regulations are worthless in addressing the problem of rogues who would flaunt them. Much the same position embraced by those of us who eschew the imposition of firearm regulation.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Driving is not a privilege. Walking and driving are both aspects of the right to travel, much like carrying a handgun and owning a rifle are both aspects of the right to bear arms. Furthermore, driver licensing and automobile registration have been even less successful at preventing general carnage and criminal abuse than have firearm registration and owner licensing.

~G. Fink

 

[Tim James]

Got it now, CFriesen, although this is starting to sound like a bunch of thinking and debating for the sake of it. It seems like just about everything in our system of government represents a potential for infringement on gun ownership. But anyway, enjoy your political discussion with your buddy, they can be fun.