Tecumseh:
Here ya go. This is my file on that one.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...#United_States
Quote:
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
Pm me if you have questions.
