"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring, licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337
111. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with public interest and convenience. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago , 337 111. 200, 169 N.E. 22, 206.
"Privately owned Buses not engaged in for hire Transportation are outside the jurisdiction of Division of Motor Vehicles enforcement of N.C. G.S. Article 17, Chapter 20***" 58 N.C.A.G. 1 (It follows that those Citizens not engaged in extraordinary use of the highway for profit or gain are likewise outside the jurisdiction of the Division of Motor Vehicles.)
The California Constitution in Article I, Section 8 (and similar statements made in all other state constitutions) , mandates that no one "be compelled to be a witness against himself, " is in agreement with the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. U.S. , 390 U.S. 85, 88 S . Ct . 722, wherein the ruling was that to force anyone to register anything is communicative, and such communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th Amendment.
"In view of this rule a statutory provision that the supervising officials "may" exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis means that they "must" exempt them." State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 60 C.J.S. section 94 page 581.
"It is now universally recognized that the state does possess such power [to impose such burdens and limitations upon private carriers when using the public highways for the transaction of their business] with respect to common carriers using the public highways for the transaction of their business in the transportation of persons or property for hire. That rule is stated as follows by the supreme court of the United States: 'A citizen may have, under the fourteenth amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them (the public highways) by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause.' ( Buck v. Kuykendall , 267 U. S. 307 [38 A. L. R. 286, 69 L. Ed. 623, 45 Sup. Ct . Rep. 324].)
The fundamental Right to travel is NOT a Privilege, it is a gift granted by your Maker, and restated by our founding fathers as Unalienable and cannot be taken by any Man / Government made Law or color of law known as a private Code (secret) or a Statute.
"Since a sale of personal property is not required to be evidenced by any written instrument in order to be valid, it has been held in North Carolina that there may be a transfer of title to an automobile without complying with the registration statute which requires a transfer and delivery of a certificate of title."
N.C. Law Review Vol. 32 page 545, Carolina Discount Corp. v. Landis Motor Co. , 190 N.C. 157."The following shall be exempt from the requirements of registration and the certificate of title:
1.) Any such vehicle driven or moved upon the highway in conformance with the provisions of this Article relating to manufacturers, dealers, or nonresidents."
2.) Any such vehicle which is driven or moved upon a highway only for the purpose of crossing such highway from one property to another. North Carolina G.S. 20-51 (1)(2) (comment: not driven or moved upon the highway for transporting persons or property for profit.) (Case note to North Carolina G.S. 12-3 "Statutory Construction")
Private Automobile is NOT required to be registered by Law The California Motor Vehicle Code, section 260: Private cars/vans etc. not in commerce / for profit, are immune to registration fees:
(a) A "commercial vehicle" is a vehicle of a type REQUIRED to be REGISTERED under this code".
(b) "Passenger vehicles which are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation or profit, and house cars, are not commercial vehicles".
(c) "a vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle" and "a vehicle not used for commercial activity is a "consumer goods", ...it is NOT a type of vehicle required to be registered and "use tax" paid of which the tab is evidence of receipt of the tax." Bank of Boston vs. Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484, UCC PP 9-10 9.14.
And;"Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969) The Washington State Supreme Court has already made it clear in the following case that the “drivers license” is intended to apply only to “for hire” vehicles. (Emphasis added.) “Sec. 103 It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile or other motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, within the city of Seattle, without having a valid and subsisting license so to do, to be known as a ‘drivers license’ ...”Driver’s license, ‘first class’ shall entitle the holder thereof to drive any kind or class of motor vehicles for hire within the city of Seattle.
“Drivers license, second class’ shall be limited to stages, sight-seeing cars, or other motor vehicles operating over a specified route and having a fixed terminal. “Drivers license, ‘third class’ shall be limited to drivers of taxicabs, for hire cars, or other automobiles not operating on fixed routes, and having a passenger capacity of less than seven (7) persons, not including the driver. ...It is intended to apply to “for hire” vehicles as provided in section 6313, Rem. Comp. Stats., are defined to mean all motor vehicles other than auto- mobile stages used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration of any kind is received, either directly or indirectly.” INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.)
Copyright © 2024 usadot-gov - All Rights Reserved.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.