[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Activism See other Activism Articles Title: [LWAN]: Suing for Rights? Response to Larry Lewis Plea / Idaho Case In answer to my plea to assist Larry Lewis in his Idaho Supreme Court case, I received several emails questioning the wisdom of attempting to sue for a driver license in the first place.
Tom's reply sums it up:
----
----
Tom takes what I call the "brute force" approach. Exercise the right to "drive" come hell or high water. (For lack of a substitute term I'll use "drive" and "driving" as it's commonly understood by most people, and not in denoting only commercial activity as Tom explains).
I was actually expecting to get a few responses like these. Those who've followed my accounts know I drove without a license for 5 1/2 years after failing to obtain a license from Pennsylvania without an SSN. Though I went through an extensive 10-month letter writing campaign with the PA DMV and state representatives (even copying the state police that I was driving with no license), I did not file suit to attempt to force PA to issue me a license.
Being deprived of a driver license over something that has absolutely nothing to do with your driving capacity makes you think a lot about whether it's a right or, as all are taught from our youth, a privilege, with only the importance of safe operation cited in explanation. Yet the same could be said for firearm ownership which remains a right.
Yes, I firmly believe driving is a right. This is because driving is accepted as *THE* primary means of transportation by Americans throughout the 50 states. Without the ability to drive, most homes would be impossible to maintain as a domicile. People would be unable to go to work, buy groceries or clothing, seek medical care or carry on a myriad of personal activities which would require the property be abandoned. Does the state contend it can arbitrarily force people from their homes and impose mass chaos by suspending the driving "privilege" for all? If driving were truly a privilege, then they would indeed have that lawful power. No, driving in this day and age is a right.
I believe the best measure was put on paper in a small case in 1929 which I've plastered at the top of my web page:
So it's simple. If a means of conveyance is a common means of transport, then its utilization is a right. By 1929, the automobile was recognized by that court as common means of transport for the average person, and was therefore considered a right. It was no less a right than riding a horse and for the same reasons. One hundred years from now, the right might apply to operations of jet scooters and flying saucers.
Though like other rights, it can be abused to the point of causing harm to others, at which point it can and should be forfeited. This means utilizing the roadways that the government maintains (but does not own) in the manner in which they were designed, such as driving at a speed no faster than that certified safe by road engineers for a particular stretch of road (which nowadays may or may not be the same as a given posted speed limit).
Back to Larry Lewis. He's got a case before the Idaho Supreme Court suing to get permission (a license) to do something without an SSN that he already a right to do. And here I am, fully believing that driving is a right, supporting him financially in his case and asking others to do the same.
It is a bit of a strategic legal dilemma. I actually articulated this paradox on the ACLS http://yahoogroups.com discussion forum just a few months ago (search on americanchristianlibertysociety), about suing to obtain permission to exercise a right without an SSN. Which strategy/philosophy is best? Is one inherently misguided?
I never wrote about in but while living in PA years ago I tried to buy a modest .22 rifle. PA requires a background check, which at the time required disclosure of an SSN. The state police refused to do the background check without an SSN, so I was refused the sale of the rifle. I wrote some letters arguing a few points, the first one being they were in violation of the federal Privacy Act of 1974. I could have sued but declined, as it occurred to me I was suing to have a background check done on myself as a condition of owning a firearm. Or stated nicely, suing to force them to violate my 4th Amendment right so I could be allowed to exercise my 2nd. Does that make sense? I decided it didn't.
Much more recently, one Michael Stollenwerk sued PA over being denied the sale of a firearm and won on the same Privacy Act argument I'd advocated by letter. So was he wrong for filing suit, or was I wrong for NOT filing suit? I don't think any of us would disagree that Mike's efforts have been positive for us, so it seems he was right and I was wrong.
There are arguments on both sides of this fence, folks, but the bottom line here is that we're all on the same side. It's that simple. Because Larry Lewis is on my side, I want to help him. He's worked hard over the last 3.5 years on this issue to take down a part of the beast. If he wins it's that much better a world for everyone. The alternative is to cheer on the DMV of Idaho and I'm choosing NOT to do that. I also don't want to sit idly by while he's there asking for help.
So... yes, I'm going to help him because I know just a little bit of what it's like (one small benefit from my experience) I'm going to show him that he's not alone. $100 won't kill me, and I've spent more money in much worse ways.
That's my place. My best goes to Larry for his case on Thursday.
Neil
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Neil McIver (#0)
I agree. I'll help!
Thanks for sharing these arguments, including yours regarding LWAN. I'm grateful some are willing to be on the front lines.
No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – James Madison
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||