"Using your car analogy, the state does certify you to drive, requires cars to have serial numbers, requires cars to be registered, etc."
You only have to have a license, registration, insurance, etc. if you drive it on the public streets. You don't need it if you drive it on your personal property or if you strictly race it on a closed course. They also don't do background checks on criminal history or mental health when you go to buy a car.
"The citizens of the state, acting through their elected representatives, may place reasonable restrictions on any of our rights"
That is assuming that the rep is actually acting as the citizens wish. Quite often reps act in contradiction to the electors wishes. Don't give me the old they elected the rep, because quite often a candidate will say one thing and do another. Yes they can be voted out, but quite often we have to decide who the lesser of two evils is.
Since you've argued both sides, you don't need me.
"The citizens of the state, acting through their elected representatives, may place reasonable restrictions on any of our rights"
looscnnn 'buys into' the spin:
That is assuming that the rep is actually acting as the citizens wish.
You assume paulsen's "reasonable restrictions" are based on constitutional due process. -- Not so. -- His vision of 'due process' is that a majority can prohibit anything at any time for any reason; -- and if you are shown in court to have violated that prohibition, -- you are guilty & due process has been served.
Driving/operating an automobile has been deemed a privilege and not a right by the courts for years. Therefore it can be regulated in all manner of ways complete with taxes, fees, registrations, licenses, etc.