Posted on 10/11/2010 12:46:11 PM PDT by djf
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
To amend Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, so as to repeal Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses; provide for a short title; to report the findings of the General Assembly regarding the constitutionality of certain laws relating to drivers' licenses; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
SECTION 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Travel Act."
SECTION 2. The General Assembly finds that: (1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right; (2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta: It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above. (3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Georgia are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights; (4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel; (5) In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel "is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association...it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; (6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and decent manner; and (7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and convert that right into a privilege.
SECTION 3. Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, is amended by repealing Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses, and designating said chapter as reserved.
SECTION 4. This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.
SECTION 5. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
Alaska respects unlicensed RKBA, but issues permits on demand for out of state use.
GA considered an “enhanced weapons permit” which likewise recognized extra regulation (training, expanded background checks) for out of state acceptance.
In GA, most counties issue license plates only for the $25 tax and for out of state use.
GA could issue permits as voluntary paperwork for the same reasons.
Not having one could also raise driver licensing to a national issue, with an optimistic result of overturning all driver licensing.
“My guess is to negate the voter ID law presently in place.”
Is the photo voter ID also used as a driver’s license?
I thought the voter ID was for everyone whether they drive or not.
For voting in GA, you must have a photo ID - many kinds are accepted. If you can prove (!) you don’t have one, then they will give you a photo voter ID card.
Bobby Franklin is a Republican member of the Georgia House of Representatives, representing District 43.
Franklin has proposed measures...
... that would prohibit all abortions in Georgia...
... the “Constitutional Tender Act”, aims to make gold and silver the only legal tender for payment of debts in the state of Georgia pursuant to Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution...
... introduced a bill that would tax the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta as it would any other privately owned bank in the state of Georgia...
The drivers license may be used as a photo ID when one goes to vote.
Well I didn’t know anything about the history or authorship of the bill, I just saw references to it and thought it was interesting.
The government doesn't 'own' the roads, the public does.
Not to mention the legal definition of license IS governmental permission.
Well said!
Its sounds, philosophically, very Constitutional and respectful of natural rights and liberty; yet, in truth, everyone IS free to use the public roads (at least most of them) [walk, pull a wagon, ride a bike, etc.)
What no one is “free” to to do is to get behind the wheel of a potentially lethal machine - lethal if used negligently and improperly - without the rest of your fellows having some small degree of belief that you know what you’re doing.
On the other hand, true enough, if you do fail to drive properly or you drive negligently, and property damage or personal injury to someone else occurs, due to your driving, the law is likely to hold you responsible, license or no license - which might be what makes the proposed law correct. Maybe. (I’m on the fence.)
Full disclosure. I was driving, in my teens, years before I was able to obtain a license. What kept me from getting caught was (1)I was too scared to do anything wrong and (2)I was an excellent driver.
Changing what I SAID is something a statist and lib would do. I don’t see parents passing out assault rifles (and I take exception to even the TERM assault rifle) to their kids when they turn 16 but they have no problem chunking them in the seat of the Expedition unsupervised.
I’m sorry I don’t have the IF IT AIN’T IN THE CONSTITUTION IT AIN’T LAW philosophy that you do. I happen to think there is a need for some rules (within reason).
And as to the “horse/wagon weigh more than a Geo...” I haven’t seen a horse and wagon hit 90mph on a city street but I have seen a Geo that’s blown a red light doing that.
Yes, we do now.
OK, could this have unintended consequences with regards to illegals being able to drive?I like any bill that takes away laws against our freedoms BTW.
Probably. But I don't think motor vehicle laws are the way to attack immigration. If they are pulled over for what is now driving without a license, I don't care to slap them with a charge should this bill pass. I'd rather just deport them.
And if they are involved in the commission of an accident, what would them having a license have to do with anything? They should be charged with being here illegally and deported.
So, I don't much care if this "legalizes" illegals driving.
In colonial days, were horse riders licensed? What about those pulling carts? I’m asking, but don’t know...although I’d guess NOT!
And yes, a runaway horse can kill you too.
You say you don't believe in a living, breathing Constitution, but you go on to explain how you believe in a living, breathing Constitution.
Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.
No. Now what is the relevence to the discussion at hand?
Technically the government does not own anything, it holds it in trust for the citizens. However as caretaker of that trust, they regulate the use of those items they hold in trust.
My point was not to argue the symantecs of government ownership, rather to illustrate that regulation of the use of roads does not restrict a person from driving. It only controls driving on the government roads for which they are responsible. Is that an unreasonable function of government?
It would be better that they were not able to get a DR LIC.That would prevent them from overwelming the system as they have done so with california.
We’re all dealing with hypotheticals here since this won’t pass, but if we did away with drivers’ licenses, we’d do away with driving without a license.
It’s like gun control: illegals are going to drive anyway. Why penalize other Americans with the government red tape (and $$$)? Just crack down on existing laws (being here illegally).
Your argument is valid; thus in my mind the debate falls down on what is an acceptable function of government regulation.
Judging by the Articles of Confederation, the founding fathers did not find that regulation of travel was an acceptable function of government, and felt that it was so obvious, it didn’t need to be incorporated in such a document.
I also fall into that category, because as we all know, a government powerful enough to ‘grant you a privilege,’ is powerful enough to revoke it just as easily. And revoking the ability to drive, or travel, is a death sentence on the ability of one to generate an income, as well as function in society, in all but a handful of cities.
But it’s clear which side of the debate won - all 50 states regulate this ‘privilege.’
I dont disagree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.