“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (1 Viewer)

[lefty louie]

What is your opinion of the below? Can we drive (freedom of travel), hunt, fish, etc without a license?


Rights are NOT "Privileges" and are NOT lawfully subject to license or licensing requirements - Run Your Own Country




I recently came across two U.S. Supreme Court decisions along these lines and wanted to run them by you:

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

Here’s our Founding Father’s take on the issue: “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) That seems abundantly clear to me.

Here’s my take on the issue: All concealed carry “permits” are licenses of a right (liberty). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) that such licenses are illegal. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) that citizens “can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Combined with fact that the Second Amendment clearly states the act of keeping and bearing arms is a right seems to withdraw all wiggle room for law enforcement to behave otherwise, unless the legal examiner or legislator ignores either the Constitution or the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

 

[Common Sense 1]

FYI

Freemen-on-the-land (also freemen-of-the-land, the freemen movement or simply freemen) are a loose group of individuals who believe that they are bound by statute laws only if they consent to those laws. They believe that they can therefore declare themselves independent of the government and the rule of law, holding that the only "true" law is their own interpretation of "common law".[1] This belief has been described as a conspiracy theory.[2] Freemen are active in English-speaking countries: the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, the United States, Australia,[3] and New Zealand.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies freemen as sovereign citizen extremists and domestic terrorists.[9][10]

"Freemen" believe that statute law is a contract, and that individuals can therefore opt out of statute law, choosing instead to live under what they call "common" (case) and "natural" laws. Under their theory, natural laws require only that individuals do not harm others, do not damage the property of others, and do not use "fraud or mischief" in contracts. They say that all people have two parts to their existence – their body and their legal "person". The latter is represented by the individual's birth certificate; some freemen claim that it is entirely limited to the birth certificate. Under this theory, a "strawman" is created when a birth certificate is issued, and this "strawman" is the entity who is subject to statutory law. The physical self is referred to by a slightly different name – for example "John of the family Smith", as opposed to "John Smith".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

 

[Grand Mal]

What is your opinion of the below? Can we drive (freedom of travel), hunt, fish, etc without a license?


Rights are NOT "Privileges" and are NOT lawfully subject to license or licensing requirements - Run Your Own Country




I recently came across two U.S. Supreme Court decisions along these lines and wanted to run them by you:

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

Here’s our Founding Father’s take on the issue: “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) That seems abundantly clear to me.

Here’s my take on the issue: All concealed carry “permits” are licenses of a right (liberty). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) that such licenses are illegal. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) that citizens “can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Combined with fact that the Second Amendment clearly states the act of keeping and bearing arms is a right seems to withdraw all wiggle room for law enforcement to behave otherwise, unless the legal examiner or legislator ignores either the Constitution or the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Why do you think you have a right to drive, hunt and fish?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Tragedy of the Commons.

That is why you need a license to drive, a permit to fish and hunt and so on. It is about the safety of others and the sustainable utilization of common resources.

 

[lefty louie]

FYI

Freemen-on-the-land (also freemen-of-the-land, the freemen movement or simply freemen) are a loose group of individuals who believe that they are bound by statute laws only if they consent to those laws. They believe that they can therefore declare themselves independent of the government and the rule of law, holding that the only "true" law is their own interpretation of "common law".[1] This belief has been described as a conspiracy theory.[2] Freemen are active in English-speaking countries: the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, the United States, Australia,[3] and New Zealand.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies freemen as sovereign citizen extremists and domestic terrorists.[9][10]

"Freemen" believe that statute law is a contract, and that individuals can therefore opt out of statute law, choosing instead to live under what they call "common" (case) and "natural" laws. Under their theory, natural laws require only that individuals do not harm others, do not damage the property of others, and do not use "fraud or mischief" in contracts. They say that all people have two parts to their existence – their body and their legal "person". The latter is represented by the individual's birth certificate; some freemen claim that it is entirely limited to the birth certificate. Under this theory, a "strawman" is created when a birth certificate is issued, and this "strawman" is the entity who is subject to statutory law. The physical self is referred to by a slightly different name – for example "John of the family Smith", as opposed to "John Smith".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

Not sure one has to do with the other.

Why do you think you have a right to drive, hunt and fish?

Freedom of travel, and where do they get the right to charge me for me trying to survive? (if that was my chosen method of survival.

 

[Grand Mal]

Not sure one has to do with the other.


Freedom of travel, and where do they get the right to charge me for me trying to survive? (if that was my chosen method of survival.

Freedom to travel- is that a right? What isn't a right, then?
If the government can take it away, it was never a right. It was a privilege. Get drunk and drive into a group of people on the sidewalk and you lose the privilege of driving and the privilege of gun ownership. See? Misbehave and you have no rights. The government takes them away.

 

[Harshaw]

If the government can take it away, it was never a right. It was a privilege.

That is contrary to the entire Anglo legal tradition all the way back to Magna Carta.

 

[Grand Mal]

That is contrary to the entire Anglo legal tradition all the way back to Magna Carta.

Okay, take it up with the authorities. I'm just the messenger.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Tragedy of the Commons.

That is why you need a license to drive, a permit to fish and hunt and so on. It is about the safety of others and the sustainable utilization of common resources.

Unfortunately, given the state of modern education, the very concept of of the Tragedy of the Commons will be as empty those to who need it most as will anything from Cicero, Voltaire, Wittgenstein, you-name-it.

 

[spud_meister]

What is your opinion of the below? Can we drive (freedom of travel), hunt, fish, etc without a license?


Rights are NOT "Privileges" and are NOT lawfully subject to license or licensing requirements - Run Your Own Country




I recently came across two U.S. Supreme Court decisions along these lines and wanted to run them by you:

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

Here’s our Founding Father’s take on the issue: “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) That seems abundantly clear to me.

Here’s my take on the issue: All concealed carry “permits” are licenses of a right (liberty). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) that such licenses are illegal. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) that citizens “can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Combined with fact that the Second Amendment clearly states the act of keeping and bearing arms is a right seems to withdraw all wiggle room for law enforcement to behave otherwise, unless the legal examiner or legislator ignores either the Constitution or the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

You are free to drive on private property without a license. You are free to travel on public property. You are not free to drive on public property unless deemed competent enough to do so safely. Would you have a 12 year old drive an Abrams Tank down your street?

 

[Harshaw]

Okay, take it up with the authorities. I'm just the messenger.

I didn't say the government can't take away rights. It can, after due process.

But that doesn't mean it was never a right, and only a privilege. 800 years of law back me up on this.

 

[Grand Mal]

I didn't say the government can't take away rights. It can, after due process.

But that doesn't mean it was never a right, and only a privilege. 800 years of law back me up on this.

800 years of law only means that for 800 years the government has been limiting your rights.

 

[Harshaw]

800 years of law only means that for 800 years the government has been limiting your rights.

Not sure what you think that has to do with what I said.

 

[Grand Mal]

Not sure what you think that has to do with what I said.

It means that for 800 years there's been only privileges.
Longer, actually, depending on where you are. Face it- accepting laws and government has always meant surrendering rights and allowing them to become privileges.

 

[Harshaw]

It means that for 800 years there's been only privileges.
Longer, actually, depending on where you are. Face it- accepting laws and government has always meant surrendering rights and allowing them to become privileges.

This is a bizarre thing to say.

I don't think you really get what the Magna Carta is, and what it did. Or what was before.

 

[Grand Mal]

This is a bizarre thing to say.

I don't think you really get what the Magna Carta is, and what it did. Or what was before.

Really.
So go ahead, set me straight. Show me where my education is lacking.
Start by telling me what the hell the Magna Carta had to do with individual rights.

 

[Tiberious]

You are free to drive on private property without a license. You are free to travel on public property. You are not free to drive on public property unless deemed competent enough to do so safely. Would you have a 12 year old drive an Abrams Tank down your street?

While it is indeed true, you can drive on private property, there must be a distinction between 2 sets of words. 1.) Driving/Traveling and 2.) Person/People.

Do not confuse me with a sovereign citizen. I am not. However, I do fully comprehend definitions as they're written in legal language which contrasts every day language we use. For example, the federal government in 18 USC 31 defines a "motor vehicle" as The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo." While a state defines a motor vehicle as, "... every vehicle that is self propelled." (which is the definition in my home state. Article 6 paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states that when the state and federal laws conflict, (as shown above) the federal law prevails. Thus showing that a motor vehicle is only one that is used for commercial purposes. Which leads to "driving" and "traveling". Even in Michigan where I live, the state recognizes the difference between driving and traveling. It specifically states at MCL 207.211 (k) "Public roads or highways" means a road, street, or place maintained by this state or a political subdivision of this state and generally open to use by the public as a matter of right for the purpose of vehicular travel, notwithstanding that they may be temporarily closed or travel restricted for the purpose of construction, maintenance, repair, or reconstruction.

This establishes the fact that the state admits there's a difference between driving a motor vehicle and vehicular travel. One is for commercial purposes and the other is for private purposes that aren't and cannot be regulated by the state.

Lets define Person/People. 1 USC section 1, the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals (see next sentence for definition of "individual"; The term person at 1 USC 8 states "the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." This being said, according to federal law a person is an infant only. Other Federal statutes state that a person "shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate,partnership, association, company or corporation" according to 26 USC 7701 (the tax code). So in all instances of the definition of "person," it can only refer to an infant or a corporation type business which can only exist through the approval of the state in the latter instance. The former, is of unsound mind and cannot make decisions for itself. (see maxim of law ejustem generis).

So this leaves the definition of "people" to be concurrent with every living human of sound mind and body of a legal age. This is obvious since the federal law states in every instance that a "person" is a fictitious endeavor allowed and or created by the state with the exception of an infant.

Answer this one question. Who do statutes and codes apply to? There is not a single statute or code that says the word "people." They only apply to "person/s" since every single statute or code specifically names only "person". Since one can only be bound by statute by name, if you're not a legal person by definition then the statutes and codes do not apply to you.

Again, I am not a sovereign citizen, however, I do fully comprehend these statutes and the definitions of the words within. That being said, one cannot argue the validity of this because it is not of my opinion. It is clearly the opinion of the state and federal statutes and codes as they clearly define and encompass all that they legally can in a clear and concise manner in which we all can clearly read. Which thankfully for we the people only includes "persons."

 

[Jryck]

FYI

Freemen-on-the-land (also freemen-of-the-land, the freemen movement or simply freemen) are a loose group of individuals who believe that they are bound by statute laws only if they consent to those laws. They believe that they can therefore declare themselves independent of the government and the rule of law, holding that the only "true" law is their own interpretation of "common law".[1] This belief has been described as a conspiracy theory.[2] Freemen are active in English-speaking countries: the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, the United States, Australia,[3] and New Zealand.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies freemen as sovereign citizen extremists and domestic terrorists.[9][10]

"Freemen" believe that statute law is a contract, and that individuals can therefore opt out of statute law, choosing instead to live under what they call "common" (case) and "natural" laws. Under their theory, natural laws require only that individuals do not harm others, do not damage the property of others, and do not use "fraud or mischief" in contracts. They say that all people have two parts to their existence – their body and their legal "person". The latter is represented by the individual's birth certificate; some freemen claim that it is entirely limited to the birth certificate. Under this theory, a "strawman" is created when a birth certificate is issued, and this "strawman" is the entity who is subject to statutory law. The physical self is referred to by a slightly different name – for example "John of the family Smith", as opposed to "John Smith".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

So you are Quoting the FBI in this Debate. So let me educate you on something Called Charters. Here is the definition of a Congressional CHARTER
"A congressional charter is a law passed by the United States Congress that states the mission, authority, and activities of a group. Congress issued federal charters from 1791 until 1992 under Title 36 of the United States Code. The first charter issued by Congress was for the First Bank of the United States. The relationship between Congress and an organization so recognized is largely symbolic, and is intended to lend the organization the legitimacy of being officially sanctioned by the U.S. government. Congress does not oversee or supervise organizations it has so chartered, aside from receiving a yearly financial statement."

All Official Government entities have to have a Charter to operate as a government Agency, The S.2928 Federal Bureau of Investigation Charter Act was introduced in 1980, And it has never been voted on. So for the last 44 years, they have been acting as a Rogue Agency, and do not have to follow the Laws of the Constitution. So Who is the extremists and domestic terrorists, If an Agency is operating outside of the Laws of the US, and acting on their own accord? They do not have the Authorization to be an entity, They are a private Security corporation, working under corporate law. So if a Law enforcement Agency is working and arresting people in the US, They are doing it with NO Charter, and technically are Violating the US constitution.
The Line "Congress does not oversee or supervise organizations it has so chartered, aside from receiving a yearly financial statement", because it has no Charter it is overseen by Congress, and what happens when Congress takes over an agency that wants to do its own bidding and not the bidding of WE the People. We get to were we are today.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/senate-bill/2928

​