look up these legal cases and put on my web site Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 14:45:52 -0700 From: jschaaf@BRASSROOTS.ORG (John Schaaf) Subject: Re: Driver's/Shooter's Licenses To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
>Go to the heart.
>
>There was an Arizona case that made the point best. I can't remember the
>name exactly but it was something like, Winn vs. State of Arizona.
>
>What this landmark case did was declare that everyone has the right to
>travel using the most mocern conveyance of the time. Walking, then horse,
Ernie,
Another famous decision in this right to travel was the Smith Vs Thompson decision of which I put a part of below;
SMITH Vs. THOMPSON 154 SE 579 (1930)
"The right of a citizen to travel on the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common law right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property and to pursue happiness in safety. It includes in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege. Like the privilege of moving a house on the street or operating a business stand in the street or of transporting persons or property for hire along the street which a city may permit or prohibit at will."
"This doctrine of travel has been pronounced most often in cases invoking the granting, refusing and revoking of licenses or permits to sell intoxicating liquors as an example or to do other things which because of their character are or tend to be injurious, as for instance the keeping of a gambling house or a bawdyhouse or operating a junk or pawn shop, those items that come under the police powers, and it has been applied to cases involving permits or licenses to transport persons or property along the streets.
But this doctrine has no application pursuant to horse drawn carriages or wagons or automobiles, and it is not a mere privilege which a city may permit or prohibit at will, it is a common law right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 10:48:24 -0700 From: ernesthancock@INFICAD.COM (Ernest Hancock) Subject: Driver's/Shooter's Licenses To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
Go to the heart.
There was an Arizona case that made the point best. I can't remember the name exactly but it was something like, Winn vs. State of Arizona.
What this landmark case did was declare that everyone has the right to travel using the most mocern conveyance of the time. Walking, then horse, then buggy. then bike, then motor vehicle, plane, space ship, mass transporter.
This applies even now when you are on an interstate highway. If you are going from Florida to California, you can not be denied the ability to do so (with or without a driver's license. Eric Boudette from Red Rock has been challenging the state's claim that they can restrict your using the roads with your modern mode of travel for years based on this ruling. He would know more about this issue and I will forward this post to him for his input that I'll forward to you all (he's also a very great marksman and was the winner of our SAFE Militia Shootout years ago).
The base of the issue is if you do or do not have a right to travel without permission from the state. Requireing licenses and or limitations on how, when or where starts you down that slippery slope. Due to the aforementioned case, the states have claimed that they now have jurisdiction because driving is to be considered a commercial activity. When challenged on this point the states have claimed that travel to and from your job is now "commercial". But as far as I know, the travel from state to state using public roads is still a protected right without a driver's license.
So the potencial danger of a 2 ton truck or a belt feed machine gun falls into the same category. Do you have the ability to exercise your right to travel or defend your life with whatever means available. The Constitution and case law said yes at first and has hedged that over the years. But, since when did freedom supporters care what some court said.
So, as I scan this issue you all have been in deep discussion over, I was thinking that the real issue is if you believe that the Government can restrict you "Right" to travel and/or how you do so. If you say yes, then you've lost the argument when it comes to gun rights before you even get started.
This is why I have always taken the no-compromise position on ANY freedom/rights issue. They are all related and once you give the government jurisdiction into any part of your life you have surrendered your jurisdiction over yourself to them.
Ernest Hancock It's a freedom thing