Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Registration & driver's licenses

Expand Messages
  • Patrick M
    In California, Section 4000 of the VEHICLE CODE makes it an infraction to drive a “motor vehicle” unless it is registered. VEHICLE CODE 4000. (a) (1) No
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 4, 2008
      In California, Section 4000 of the VEHICLE CODE makes it an infraction to
      drive a “motor vehicle” unless it is registered.

      VEHICLE CODE 4000. (a) (1) No person shall drive, move, or leave standing
      upon a highway, or in an offstreet public parking facility, any motor vehicle,
      trailer, semitrailer, pole or pipe dolly, or logging dolly, unless it is registered
      and the appropriate fees have been paid under this code or registered under
      the permanent trailer identification program, except that an off-highway motor
      vehicle which displays an identification plate or device issued by the
      department pursuant to Section 38010 may be driven, moved, or left standing
      in an offstreet public parking facility without being registered or paying
      registration fees.[rest omitted]

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh
      <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=03001-04000
      &file=4000-4023> &group=03001-04000&file=4000-4023

      HOWEVER the ONLY “motor vehicle of a type” that IS REQUIRED to be
      REGISTERED under the VEHICLE CODE is a "commercial vehicle".

      VEHICLE CODE 260. (a) A "commercial vehicle" is a motor vehicle of a type
      required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the
      transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used,
      or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. (b) Passenger
      vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for
      hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision
      shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.
      (c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle. (d) The definition of a
      commercial vehicle in this section does not apply to Chapter 7 (commencing
      with Section 15200) of Division 6.

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh
      <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=00001-01000
      &file=100-680> &group=00001-01000&file=100-680

      There is NO REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT for other “vehicles” or
      “motor vehicles”, IS THERE?

      VEHICLE CODE 415. (a) A "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is self-propelled.
      (b) "Motor vehicle" does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized
      tricycle, or motorized quadricycle, if operated by a person who, by reason of
      physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian. (c) For
      purposes of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3000) of Division 2, "motor
      vehicle" includes a recreational vehicle as that term is defined in subdivision
      (a) of Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code, but does not include a
      truck camper.

      VEHICLE CODE 670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property
      may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device
      moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails
      or tracks.

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh
      <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=00001-01000
      &file=100-680> &group=00001-01000&file=100-680

      “Passenger vehicles” & “house cars” that are not used for the transportation of
      persons for hire, compensation, or profit are NOT REQUIRED to be
      REGISTERED, are they?

      VEHICLE CODE 362. A "house car" is a motor vehicle originally designed, or
      permanently altered, and equipped for human habitation, or to which a
      camper has been permanently attached. A motor vehicle to which a camper
      has been temporarily attached is not a house car except that, for the purposes
      of Division 11 (commencing with Section 21000) and Division 12
      (commencing with Section 24000), a motor vehicle equipped with a camper
      having an axle that is designed to support a portion of the weight of the
      camper unit shall be considered a three-axle house car regardless of the
      method of attachment or manner of registration. A house car shall not be
      deemed to be a motortruck.

      VEHICLE CODE 465. A "passenger vehicle" is any motor vehicle, other than a
      motortruck, truck tractor, or a bus, as defined in Section 233, and used or
      maintained for the transportation of persons. The term "passenger vehicle"
      shall include a housecar.

      They are NOT “commercial vehicles”, are they?

      “We conclude that the lower court's construction of Vehicle Code section 260
      more reasonably conforms to the legislative intent and that the term "for hire"
      modifies the word "transportation," so that a commercial vehicle is one in
      which persons or property are transported for hire. Thus, "commercial
      vehicles" are of two types: (1) those put to the use of transporting persons for
      hire, and (2) those designed, used or maintained primarily for the
      transportation of property. In other words, vehicles used for the traditional
      purposes of public livery or conveyance, such as buses, taxicabs or other
      vehicles functioning as common carriers or otherwise, operate for a profit.”
      Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Carrier Ins. Co. (1975), 45 Cal.App.3d 223

      <http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/45/223.html>
      http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/45/223.html

      And people are ONLY LICENSED to drive CERTAIN TYPES of “motor
      vehicles or combination of vehicles” UNDER the VEHICLE CODE, AREN’T
      they?

      VEHICLE CODE 310. A "driver's license" is a valid license to drive the type of
      motor vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person is licensed under
      this code or by a foreign jurisdiction.

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh
      <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=00001-01000
      &file=100-680> &group=00001-01000&file=100-680

      DOESN’T it make sense that the “motor vehicles or combination of vehicles”
      that the are LICENSED to drive under the VEHICLE CODE would be a
      “motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code” which is a
      “commercial vehicle”?

      VEHICLE CODE 310. A "driver's license" is a valid license to drive the type of
      motor vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person is licensed under
      this code or by a foreign jurisdiction.

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh
      <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=00001-01000
      &file=100-680> &group=00001-01000&file=100-680

      “We conclude that the lower court's construction of Vehicle Code section 260
      more reasonably conforms to the legislative intent and that the term "for hire"
      modifies the word "transportation," so that a commercial vehicle is one in
      which persons or property are transported for hire. Thus, "commercial
      vehicles" are of two types: (1) those put to the use of transporting persons for
      hire, and (2) those designed, used or maintained primarily for the
      transportation of property. In other words, vehicles used for the traditional
      purposes of public livery or conveyance, such as buses, taxicabs or other
      vehicles functioning as common carriers or otherwise, operate for a profit.”
      Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Carrier Ins. Co. (1975), 45 Cal.App.3d 223

      http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/45/223.html

      After ALL of the legal authorities state that the People have the RIGHT to use
      the public roads for PURPOSES of VEHICULAR TRAVEL & that RIGHT is
      part of our RIGHT to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” & NOT a
      PRIVILEGE, HAVEN’T they?

      LIBERTY. Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit,
      without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.

      2. Liberty is divided into civil, natural, personal, and political.

      3. Civil liberty is the power to do whatever is permitted by the constitution of
      the state and the laws of the land. It is no other than natural liberty, so far
      restrained by human laws, and no further, operating equally upon all the
      citizens, as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public.
      1 Black. Com. 125; Paley's Mor. Phil. B. 6, c.5; Swifts Syst. 12

      4. That system of laws is alone calculated to maintain civil liberty, which
      leaves the citizen entirely master of his own conduct, except in those points in
      which the public good requires some direction and restraint. When a man is
      restrained in his natural liberty by no municipal laws but those which are
      requisite to prevent his violating the natural law, and to promote the greatest
      moral and physical welfare of the community, he is legally possessed of the
      fullest enjoyment of his civil rights of individual liberty. But it must not be
      inferred that individuals are to judge for themselves how far the law may
      justifiably restrict their individual liberty; for it is necessary to-the welfare of
      the commonwealth, that the law should be obeyed; and thence is derived the
      legal maxim, that no man may be wiser than the law.

      5. Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing
      of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to
      their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of
      nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men.
      Burlamaqui, c. 3, s. 15; 1 Bl. Com. 125.

      6. Personal liberty is the independence of our actions of all other will than our
      own. Wolff, Ins. Nat. §77. It consists in the power of locomotion, of changing
      situation, or removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may
      direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. 1 Bl.
      Com. 134.

      7. Political liberty may be defined to be, the security by which, from the
      constitution, form and nature of the established government, the citizens enjoy
      civil liberty. No ideas or definitions are more distinguishable than those of
      civil and political liberty, yet they are generally confounded. 1 Bl. Com. 6, 125.
      The political liberty of a state is based upon those fundamental laws which
      establish the distribution of legislative and executive powers. The political
      liberty of a citizen is that tranquility of mind, which is the effect of an opinion
      that he is in perfect security; and to insure this security, the government must
      be such that one citizen shall not fear another.

      8. In the English law, by liberty is meant a privilege held by grant or
      prescription, by which some men enjoy greater benefits than ordiuary
      subjects. A liberty is also a territory, with some extraordinary privilege.

      9. By liberty or liberties, is understood a part of a town or city, as the Northern
      Liberties of the city of Philadelphia. The same as Faubourg. (q. V.)
      BOUVIER’S LAW DICTIONARY, 1856 Edition.

      "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where
      and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may
      make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen
      to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by
      horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may
      be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under
      his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this
      Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel
      at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while
      conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with
      nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person,
      but in his safe conduct." American Jurisprudence 1st. Constitutional Law,
      Sect.329, p 1135.

      81. “Street” or “Highway.” “Street” or “highway” is a way or place of whatever
      nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of
      vehicular travel. STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA 1935, Vehicle Code, Chapter
      27, page 98.

      "Fundamentally it must be recognized that in this country "Highways are for
      the use of the traveling public, and all have ... the right to use them in a
      reasonable and proper manner, and subject to proper regulations as to the
      manner of use." (13 Cal.Jur. 371, sec. 59) "The streets of a city belong to the
      people of the state, and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen,
      subject to legislative control or such reasonable regulations as to the traffic
      thereon or the manner of using them as the legislature may deem wise or
      proper to adopt and impose." (19 Cal.Jur. 54, sec. 407) "Streets and highways
      are established and maintained primarily for purposes of travel and
      transportation by the public, and uses incidental thereto. Such travel may be
      for either business or pleasure ... The use of highways for purposes 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 ...[A]ll
      persons have an equal right to use them for purposes of travel by proper
      means, and with due regard for the corresponding rights of others." (25
      Am.Jur. 456-457, sec. 163; see, also, 40 C.J.S. 244-247, sec. 233.)" Escobedo
      v. State of California (1950), 35 Cal.2d 870, 875-876.

      http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal2d/35/870.html

      "The right to travel interstate by auto vehicle upon the public highways may be
      a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States. Compare Crandall v.
      Nevada, 6 Wall. 35. A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the
      right to travel and transport his property upon them by auto vehicle. But he
      has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a
      common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or
      withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process
      clause or the equal protection clause. Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144 ,
      44 S. Ct. 257." BUCK v. KUYKENDALL, 267 U.S. 307 (1925)
      http://laws.findlaw.com/us/267/307.html

      ISN”T SECURING our INALIENABLE/UNALIENABLE RIGHTS the MAIN
      PURPOSE of GOVENERNMENT?

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
      they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
      these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
      rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
      from the consent of the governed” DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
      (1776)

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

      So SINCE the RIGHT to use the public roads for PURPOSES of VEHICULAR
      TRAVEL is part of our RIGHT to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
      & NOT a PRIVILEGE would NOT the People’s USAGE of the public roads
      for PURPOSES of VEHICULAR TRAVEL be a FUNDEMENTAL RIGHT
      which is secured by both the STATE & FEDERAL constitutions?

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
      to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment IX,
      CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

      SECTION 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain
      inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and
      liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and
      obtaining safety and happiness. ARTICLE I., CALIFORNIA
      CONSTITUTION (1849)

      http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/level3_const1849txt.html

      SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
      inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty,
      acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining
      safety, happiness, and privacy.

      …

      SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those
      guaranteed by the United States Constitution...This declaration of rights may
      not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people. ARTICLE I,
      CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (1879)

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

      Now since the People’s USAGE of the public roads for PURPOSES of
      VEHICULAR TRAVEL IS a FUNDEMENTAL RIGHT which is secured by
      both the STATE & FEDERAL constitutions, wouldn’t that mean that it can
      NOT be ABROGATED/DENIED or CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGISLATED
      away?

      “That a constitutional right may be subject to reasonable rules and regulations
      for the enforcement or protection thereof is elementary. A recent decision of
      this court in the case of Chesney v. Byram, 15 Cal.2d 460 [101 PaCal.2d 1106],
      which cites the Crescent Wharf case, has held that a right granted by a
      constitutional provision may be subject to reasonable regulation and control
      by the state legislature and at the same time such provision may be
      self-executing.

      [7] It will be noted, however, that in neither of said cases did the court in any
      way imply that by state legislation or a lack thereof a constitutional right might
      be taken away or denied altogether, for it is likewise elementary that the
      legislature by statutory enactment may not abrogate or deny a right granted by
      the Constitution. Potter v. Ames, 43 Cal. 75; Wilcox v. Engebretsen, 160 Cal.
      288 [116 P. 750]; Sievers v. Root, 10 Cal. App. 337 [101 P. 925]. And it
      follows as a logical conclusion that a right constitutionally granted cannot be
      taken away by the failure of the legislature to act.” … “No valid distinction can
      be drawn between cities, counties, and other political subdivisions … and the
      state highway. … All are agencies of the state, and all derive their immunity
      from the same source, the state, and upon the ground that, being agencies of
      the state, they are in effect the state itself. … “To hold otherwise would be to
      say that the Constitution itself gives a right which the legislature may deny by
      failing or refusing to provide a remedy. Such a construction would indeed
      make the constitutional provision a hollow mockery instead of a safeguard for
      the rights of citizens.” Rose v. State of California ,19 Cal.2d 713

      http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal2d/19/713.html

      “It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a
      law “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the
      Constitution [it] is presumptively unconstitutional.” Mobile v. Bolden, 446
      U.S. 55, 76 (plurality opinion).” HARRIS v. McRAE, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/448/297.ht
      ml

      “Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no
      rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona,
      384 U.S. 436, 491.

      http://laws.findlaw.com/us/384/436.html

      HOWEVER the USAGE of the public roads “for purposes of gain is special
      and extraordinary, which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or
      condition as it sees fit” IS a PRIVILEGE & NOT a right, ISN’T it?

      First. It is well established law that the highways of the state are public
      property; that their primary and preferred use is for private purposes; and that
      their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, which, generally at
      least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit. Packard v. Banton,
      264 U.S. 140, 144 , 44 S.Ct. 257, and cases cited; Frost & Frost Trucking Co.
      v. R.R. Comm., 271 U.S. 583, 592 , 593 S., 46 S.Ct. 605, 47 A.L.R. 457; Hodge
      Drive-It-Yourself Co. v. Cincinnati, 284 U.S. 335, 337 , 52 S.Ct. 144; Johnson
      Transfer & Freight Lines v. Perry (D.C.) 47 F.(2d) 900, 902; Southern
      Motorways v. Perry (D.C.) 39 F.(2d) 145, 147; People’s Transit Co. v.
      Henshaw (C.C.A.) 20 F.(2d) 87, 89; Weksler v. Collins, 317 Ill. 132, 138, 139,
      147 N.E. 797; Maine Motor Coaches v. Public Utilities, 125 Me. 63, 65, 130 A.
      866. [287 U.S. 251, 265]” STEPHENSON v. BINFORD, 287 U.S. 251 (1932)

      http://laws.findlaw.com/us/287/251.html

      And driving a “motor vehicle on the public streets and highways” is a
      PRIVILEGE (& NOT a right), ISN’T it?

      VEHICLE CODE 14607.4. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
      following:

      (a) Driving a motor vehicle on the public streets and highways is a privilege,
      not a right.

      <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=14001-15000
      &file=14600-14611>
      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=14001-15000&
      file=14600-14611

      A PRIVILEGE (and NOT a right) that the LEGISLATURE can ALTER or
      REVOKE?

      SEC. 7...(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or
      immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

      Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

      <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1>
      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

      WOULDN’T that make the “driver’s license” the MEANS though “the
      legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit” the PRIVILEGE of “driving
      a motor vehicle on the public streets and highways” SINCE the terms of it can
      be ALTERED or REVOKED?

      VEHICLE CODE 12500. (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a
      highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this
      code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code.(rest
      omitted)

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh
      <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=12001-13000
      &file=12500-12527> &group=12001-13000&file=12500-12527

      And DOESN’T the VEHICLE CODE itself ADMIT that our ACCRUED
      RIGHTS are NOT affected their provisions?

      VEHICLE CODE 4. No action or proceeding commenced before this code
      takes effect, and no right accrued, is affected by the provisions of this code,
      but all procedure thereafter taken therein shall conform to the provisions of
      this code so far as possible.

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh
      <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=00001-01000
      &file=1-32> &group=00001-01000&file=1-32

      So WHY would anyone who has KNOWLEDGE of these FACTS “believe”
      that the “driver’s license” & “driving a motor vehicle on the public streets and
      highways” which is A PRIVILEGE (and NOT a right) that the LEGISLATURE
      can ALTER or REVOKE has ANYTHING to do with the People’s usage of the
      public roads for PURPOSES of VEHICULAR TRAVEL which IS a
      FUNDEMENTAL RIGHT which is secured by both the STATE & FEDERAL
      constitutions, which can NOT be ABROGATED/DENIED or
      CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGISLATED away?

      Patrick in California

      "Look Rocky, never once do my fingers leave my hand!" -- Bullwinkle
    • Frog Farmer
      ... Is it because people are confused and don t know what words mean anymore, believing that political correctness makes each person s opinion of the meaning
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 5, 2008
        Patrick M wrote:

        > So WHY would anyone who has KNOWLEDGE of these FACTS "believe"
        > that the "driver's license" & "driving a motor vehicle on the public
        > streets and
        > highways" which is A PRIVILEGE (and NOT a right) that the LEGISLATURE
        > can ALTER or REVOKE has ANYTHING to do with the People's usage of the
        > public roads for PURPOSES of VEHICULAR TRAVEL which IS a
        > FUNDEMENTAL RIGHT which is secured by both the STATE & FEDERAL
        > constitutions, which can NOT be ABROGATED/DENIED or
        > CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGISLATED away?

        Is it because people are confused and don't know what words mean
        anymore, believing that political correctness makes each person's
        opinion of the meaning of a word equally valid?

        I used a lot of your citations when I won my own license cases back in
        the 1980's. Once a judge read aloud to a whole room why I didn't need
        any license, and still the next guy after me, who was charged with
        driving without one, didn't avail himself of the information. What can
        you do? People need to have a personal interest in avoiding unnecessary
        waste fraud and abuse at the hands of government. Without that, they
        remain sheep to be shorn.

        Regards,

        FF
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.