Reply With QuoteI think BoatCop put that one to bed... :220v: :hammerhea
By applying for and accepting a license, you have already given that consent. The signing part is just a formality.
how long has that law bin in effect
I think BoatCop put that one to bed... :220v: :hammerhea
Since the dawn of time. Since man has been putting pen to paper. :wink:
I think your wrong
it was about the time they started calling it a privilege before it was a right
they had to change it so they could do the test without your permission
otherwise they would be violating your rights
It's never been a "right" to drive. I'm pretty sure The Right to Drive a Motor Vehicle is not included in the Bill of Rights, but I'll check.
you cannot restrict ones right to travel
wen i got my license it wasn't a privilege or a right it was just a license
but thats not what I'm talking about it happened when the DUI laws started getting stricter they couldn't take your license if it was a right so they started calling it a privilege
I was being fatitous. You've never had the right to drive, it's always been a priviledge. I guess they just recently needed to remind people of that. If you had the right to drive, you would have been born with a car.
well some guys got out off the restrictions because nothing said it was a privilege they still got the fine but no lose of license
wish I could find the info on it
I think you're using the fact that something was not a law to conclude that it was a right. When I was a young man, you could drink at 18. Now it's 21. I didn't have the RIGHT to drink at 18, it just wasn't against the law at the time. Now it is. That doesn't mean they're violating someone's rights. Laws change.
I'm not trying to be a dick just wondering about things
so before there were drivers licenses was it a privilege or a right
every thing is a right before some one tells you its not
you cannot restrict ones right to travel
Where does the Constitution or Bill of Rights say anythng about a "right" to travel? All I read is the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
Even if someone can come up with that "right" in some convoluted way, there are many ways to travel. Taxi, airplane, bus, train, walk, bicycle, skateboard, horseback, pack mule, hitch hike, roller skates, hired driver, etc. Driving a car is just one mode of travel.
Taking the license and not permitting a person to drive, because they can not or will not abide by the laws of the duly elected legislature is not an infringement on anyone's "rights".
On the contrary, an unsafe, drunk, reckless, habitual offender driver has the definite potential to infringe on my, and everyone else's, rights.
Mainly the right to "LIFE"!
As always BC you have stated your point very clearly and with ablosute perfection. In Arizona, as with most states, if you drive in our state you have given your consent to give a sample. Illegal aliens too. If you refuse, wich you have the right to do, fine, you will lose your priveledge to drive in our state for one year, two if there is a prior refusal on your record within the last three years.
Remember, you got pulled over for a reason, swerving, speeding, accident, past out at a green light. These things all go toward the "probable cause" for arrest.
I just won against a guy who refused everything. Fst's, Pbt, intox, everything. I had evidence of (1. 110 mph in a 25 mph zone, (2. bloodshot eyes, (3. slurred speech, (4. moderate odor of intox bev on breath.
Got a search warrant, drew blood. At the DMV hearing the attny was asking good pointed questions but his client refused the test, 1 yr suspension.
Just got the blood back from the lab and the guy was One one-thousandth under Extreme DUI. The attny is calling begging for a plea deal.
Any attny that I have talked to that deals with DUI's has told their client to refuse everything but the intox. They would rather fight the accuracy of the device in court than try it in a DMV hearing and have had their client refuse. They never win that one.
In this case (and all others) 'Liberty' means TRAVEL, unincumbered, unrestricted, TRAVEL, movement, locomotion, 'cruisen', all of the items mentioned ! We all know that the "courts" can/will override the lawmakers, so why is this such an issue? What are the actual 'guidelines in these cases? MADD and others are all up in arms, but what about PASDS? People Against Stupid DriverS ! On Havasu, we have more STUPID/ ARROGANT drivers than drunks, so why target the smaller group? I know the majority are stupid, because I boat on the lake 4/5 times a week. Most have no idea they are doing something wrong, and may never know what is correct.
Are you putting 'licensed highway drivers' and 'unlicensed boaters' in the same "spot". I understand that insurance companies 'rate' car and boat driving together, but are the "rules of the road" the same? Often, maritime laws are not the same as 'road laws' , and Havasu/ the river is a Federal waterway. As boaters in this area, we should have access to the LAWS, not opinions, but the facts as written. Where can we go for the written laws? Again, under the "Liberty" part of your question, we (the people) should require/demand that the laws in this area be posted/ public forum, and accessable to all who inquire. Do boaters need to seek out the laws, or do we just wait until the laws prevent boating?
Posting Permissions