When we were fighting the mandatory helmet law in the 1970s, a common slogan was “educate, don’t legislate.” Although rider education and motor vehicle awareness campaigns are in vogue today, we were all about education from the beginning of our grass-roots activism. We considered ourselves patriots and we fought to secure our right to be left alone. Our bodies were our property and we didn’t need any help from the government to help us decide what to wear when we rode. Two of our most sacred rights, from which all other rights derive, are the right to property and the right to be left alone. Think about that for a moment.
When I lecture about rights at a traffic stop, I often start my presentation by saying the only rights you have are the rights you know you have. If you don’t know you have a right to refuse answering certain questions at a traffic stop, you’ll probably let yourself get talked into relinquishing more rights, like allowing a search of your car or person. What you don’t know can hurt you. Yet, we’d like to continue in our blissful ignorance because it’s uncomfortable to think of the alternative. It’s understandable that no biker is going to want to stay home and read some reference books on the Constitution when it’s sunny out. But what about those rainy weekends or cold winter days? Do you really want to educate yourself to learn all you can about your rights, or are you complacent with life as it is, thinking nothing really bad is going to affect you?
But this is America and we have to trust our government. The truth is the continued erosion of rights has caused many to lose faith in our government. None of the wars since WW II have been declared by Congress, although only Congress can declare war. To get around this fact, there have been resolutions to declare war, although there is no legal basis for this in the Constitution. The war in Iraq and all of the wars that we have engaged in since World War II have been unconstitutional. The War Powers Act of 1973 notwithstanding, as in Article 1, Section 8, only Congress can declare war, not the President. The AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military force in Iraq) resolution is not an act of Congress, but a resolution as defined in a legal dictionary: Resolutions are not laws; they differ fundamentally in their purpose.
Some say the Constitution is a living document. I think it’s just a piece of paper if the government can amend or interpret it according to some political agenda or another. The blissfully ignorant among us think it’s OK to limit things like speech, association or gun ownership, for the good of society. The problem with that thinking is those things are all inalienable rights, which means they were never given by government and cannot be taken away by government. Here’s where some of that education becomes relevant. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Learn the difference between rights and privileges. Unfortunately, almost everyone, me included, has given up some rights for privilege. The most often examined is the right to drive. I’ve had arguments with motorcycle rights leaders who have surrendered to the false belief that driving is a privilege. It goes back to that property right I spoke of earlier. Not only is your vehicle your property, but the roads are your property also. Ignorance of the facts and a trusting belief that you need a driver’s license to drive has made almost everyone fall into the trap of surrendering a right to government, thus allowing it to tax us (a license is a tax).
What is this driver’s license they require us to have? License – the permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act.
There are numerous court decisions to support the argument that no license is needed to drive on the roadways unless it is for commercial purposes (The Supreme Court of Minnesota in the case of Hanson vs. Hall, 202 Minn. 381, 383 (1938), The Supreme Court of Nebraska in Michelsen vs. Dwyer, 63 N.W.2d, 513, 517, 158 Neb. 427 (1954), The Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of City of Chicago vs. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910, 175 Ill. 445, People vs. Nothaus, 363 P.2d 180, 182; 147 Colo. 210, 214 (1961), Adams vs City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966), House vs. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3, 134 Iowa 374, Chicago Coach Co. vs. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205, 169 N.E. 22; Matson vs. Dawson, 178 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Neb. 1970).
So how do the states get away with enforcing the law requiring a driver’s license? Citizens are legally under the jurisdiction of the state if they voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel “unregulated and unrestricted.” Requesting a driver’s license and vehicle registration is in effect, entering into a contract with the state. What makes this “legal,” and not a violation of the individuals common law right to travel “unrestricted” is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly persuaded to obtain a license, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. How many of us assumed a license was necessary? It’s stated clearly on page one of every motorist’s handbook in every state. Wisconsin’s booklet asks the question, “Who needs a license?” The state’s answer is every resident of the state who plans to drive a motor vehicle and any new resident who moves to Wisconsin must apply for a Wisconsin license within 30 days of establishing residency. That appears to be mandatory to me. I didn’t knowingly waive my rights, I was blissfully ignorant.
Look more closely at the gun ownership debate. There is an increasing energy on the part of some federal lawmakers to regulate gun ownership more and more. Pro-gun advocates argue the 2nd Amendment secures their right to own firearms. People like Ted Nugent are considered extremists or even nuts, when stating the 2nd Amendment is their permit to own and carry a firearm, not the permit issued by the states. In New York, police are claiming that membership in a motorcycle club voids any concealed carry permits, and members must surrender their guns.
Government’s answer to those who refuse to give up their rights is the continuing erosion of those rights by degree. Consider the attempts to regulate the size of magazines for firearms. Even some avid gun owners have been duped into agreeing with the concept of limiting magazine size. After all, who really needs 30 rounds? So it’s easy to compromise and agree to a 10-round limit. What really happens with that reasoning is a surrender of the right to own and use your property as you see fit. Now, you have allowed government to dictate some rules concerning your property and opened the door for even more regulation in the future. You’ve surrendered your right to control that property.
