TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

BigGuy wrote:IANAL. But it has always been my understanding that what the DL allows you to do is operate a vehicle on the public roadways. Living in the country we often drove grain and fertilizer trucks (As well a various types of farm equipment) around the farm well before we got a DL. As long as we stayed on private property and off the roads, it is my understanding that we were breaking no law.
If that understanding is correct then the agreement, a DL represents, between you and the State is about the use of public facilities, built, owned, and maintained by the State. That would be a privilege, not a right.

Use of public roadways is not a right, it is a privilege. The state and feds can prohibit you from walking on a public roadway (think Interstate where is is illegal to walk).

True in that sense. But then the State doesn't allow competition from private roadways. They've essentially transformed a right --the right to travel-- into a privilege by using State power to make a non-governmental alternative infeasible. Also, I pay taxes for those roadways and they are "public" roadways, and I should therefore have the right to travel upon them as long as I follow the rules of usage. If they were private property I'd have no such right.

RogueUSMC wrote:The biggest difference I see between this incident and a traffic stop is as follows...

When operating a motor vehicle, it is done under the privilege granted by the state, not a right. This privilege is regulated by a the state using an identification card. You assume the responsibilities when you sign the forms to obtain the privilege of operating a motor vehicle.

Just standing on the street is not a privilege regulated by the state, it is a right. As our rights are assumed, (being as you were born with them) they did not come with a signed agreement between you and the government.

So the two situations are really apples vs. oranges.

So then, is riding a bicycle a "right" or a "privilege" granted by the State. Do you think the Founders considered riding a horse or riding in a horse-drawn wagon to be a privilege granted by the State? Do you think they would have agreed they couldn't ride a horse or drive a wagon without a license? Are you saying we have no right to travel? If we have a right to travel are you saying the only way we can exercise that right is by walking? Wouldn't that infringe on such a right? Or are you saying the Founders could never have envisioned cars and other modes of transportation and only intended we travel about on foot or horseback? Sort of like they only intended for us to be armed with muskets?

tbrown wrote:He touched a cop in uniform to stop the cop from moving toward his friend. I'm waiting for the media to vilify him like they vilified George Zimmerman for touching a cop (who wasn't in uniform) from moving toward his friend.

If anyone in the media has a milligram of integrity, they'll be all over this. But don't hold your breath.

If they had a milligram of integrity they'd be forced out of the media. Nothing screws up a corrupt culture or organization like someone with a little integrity.