It's Earl.

I drove an 18 wheeler for 22 years. The laws are so complex that if a DOT officer does an inspection on your truck, they can write you a ticket for something if they really want to.
Lot of the laws are well known but it's the gray areas that most folks are not familiar with.
It would be better to just enforce the laws that make a real difference and don't violate individuals rights.
But, in today's world, to hell with the constitution and just do whatever we can get away with.

I've driven commercial vehicles as well. DOT rules have a "well regulated industry" exception.

Alabama courts ruled early on that hunting and fishing are not industries.

Using the public roadways is not a right either. It is a privilege afforded by the state to persons that get a DL.

No offense, but it sounds like Eddie. We've been down this road before and I don't know how DCNR explains it, especially since hunting in this state is now defined as a right. I'm hoping that one of the GWs will have the explanation.

I started driving in 1985 and sold my trucks in 2003. Went to work driving local after my daughter was born.
Left trucking altogether in 2007. We have more regulations than ever on the trucking industry and it's only gotten worse as far as safety goes. Federal Gov and states make a lot of revenue off trucks. Alabama was one of the most truck friendly states for the most part.
I'm all for real safety but the laws in this country have gotten way out of hand and common sense is thrown out the window.

It will be interesting to see what the game wardens have to say about it. I think someone mentioned earlier that a lot of people here believe the end justifies the means.

The rule goes beyond what the law requires and makes it a misdemeanor to refuse an inspection (search without warrant) on the condition that an officer identifies himself.

The rule dates back to the '80s. The right to hunt amendment was first ratified in '96, then we ratified another one a couple of years ago.

Good point.

I understand the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" worries,... but I can't start to understand why anyone would be against the no fly no buy thing. Are you worried about being on the no fly list yourself? I'm not, so it sounds like a good preventative measure to me

If you have nothing to hide then you really should never plead the 5th and you should always consent to a search, right? After all, nothing bad can happen if you're innocent.

People are worried because it's not that hard to get on the no fly list, and it's really hard to get off. They're worried that people will start putting their political enemies/people they don't like on the list.

Can't say in my 32 years I've ever been asked for a search. Also can't imagine why I would care. Pretty sure I'm 100% legal

There are people that get turned down or delayed on buying a gun because their name is the same or similar to someone prohibited from buying a gun. Imagine if someone with a name matching yours was on the no fly list how difficult and what hoops you would have to jump through to get that straight. And that's not even considering the fact that your name could be purposely put on the list for some odd reason. People used to not worry about the irs knocking on their door just because of their political beliefs. Not so true anymore.

Makes sense, I didn't realize that

Here's a copy/paste explanation of the whole "driving is a right/privilege, not a privilege/right" thing as I've always understood it...
from http://www.begnopardon.com/driving-vs-traveling.html

Driving vs. Traveling

Brought to you kind sir by the Supreme Court and our beautiful U.S. Constitution.

My dear friends, since humans were created they were free to travel how they saw fit. Likewise, Americans have shared in that same right since the dawn of our beautiful country. Americans have always had the right to travel freely and unencumbered from laws, regulations, statues, and licensing.

HISTORY
From the use of horse and buggy, to the early Model 'T', Americans have never been required to get "permission" to travel on the public roads or highways when it was for personal reasons. Has anything changed now that you have zippy fast cars?

Soon there were a lot of people on the roads for commercial purposes. This resulted in people lumbering along transporting generous loads on the roads with trucks and trailers, because of this the government felt the need to make laws and regulations to protect the innocent citizens from the dangers of this commercial traffic.

Following this, the government began requiring commercial drivers to register and obtain "licenses", basically this meant they were getting permission from the government for use on the public roads and highways for commercial use.

This lead to a creative revenue stream requiring a registration to be paid by these divers for their vehicles to subsidize the extra wear and tear on the public highways.

Kindly, the government opened this up to the general public to become 'drivers' by "allowing" them to register their cars and get driver's license if they choose.

"Then, through police misapplication, ticket writing, and false slogans such as “Driving is not a right, it is a privilege”, they have been able to get the general public to believe they had to be licensed and registered. It's like an old wives' tale which has become widely accepted. Even most cops (whose duty it is to know the law) don't know and don't care to learn these laws...They just like to keep writing those tickets....Cha-Chingggg."

CURRENT PROBLEM
When you find yourself before a judge, more than likely they will pretend that cases against the driver's license does not even exist or they will say the cases for previous Supreme Court ruling are too old... don't fret, we have a bullet proof argument!

So what does the judges in the Supreme Court have to say about this... since they are the ones who judge law and who ALL other lower courts are inferior to?

This is not an easy struggle, but you can end up like several others before you, and go as you please without a license, registration, or insurance.

"All citizens must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, and regulations..." SHAPIRO v. THOMPSON 394 US 618
"The RIGHT of the citizen TO TRAVEL UPON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS and to transport his property thereon, either by horse-drawn carriage OR BY AUTOMOBILE, IS NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE which the city may prohibit or permit at will, BUT IS A COMMON RIGHT." THOMPSON v. SMITH, 155 Va 367
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." CHICAGO MOTOR COACH v. CHICAGO, 169 NE 221
”If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and charge a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.” SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 US 262


My car is NOT a "Motor Vehicle"

USC Title 18, § 31 9(6) - Definition of "Motor Vehicle":

"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 and property, or property or cargo."

USC Title 18, § 31(10) - Definition of "Commercial Purposes":

"The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of the persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking for profit."


So your car, SUV, or motorcycle is only a "commercial vehicle" if you are getting paid to "drive" it. If you are only using it to travel around to go to work, school, groceries, or any other private reason then it IS NOT A "MOTOR VEHICLE".

Here is the dilemma, when the government started requiring the commercial vehicles to be registered and licensed it made that a regulable activity for that purpose. They made everyone else believe it was the same for the general public. The police, you and all your friends are taught that you are always 'operating' a 'motor vehicle' which are both commercial regulable activites.

May the state change the definition of a word or term (MOTOR VEHICLE) from the original meaning (USC Title 18, § 31 (6) to another definition to fit their own needs? NO:

The state cannot change the meaning of “motor vehicle” and “driver” to fit their own needs: "Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing? We cannot think so.” […The State] cannot change the name of a thing to avoid the mandates of the Constitution.]" CRAIG v. MISSOURI, U S 29, 410

What the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, says here is that the state cannot change the meaning of “person traveling” to “driver”, and they cannot change the name or term of “private car,” “pickup” or “motorcycle” to “Motor Vehicle”. You declare original intent to prove your standing!

Another protection provided to you from the beautiful Constitution is the burden of jurisdiction is on them to prove that you were not traveling, but instead driving. This subject of Due Process is a powerful tool against the circus and revenue agents, aka police.

A lot of bad things happen in times of war and strife. Look at the Patriot Act. If I pay cash for a pickup truck that cost $11.000, I will have to show where I got the money from, this is not right.
Just because the Federal government or the State passes a law doesn't mean it's right.
The law may be legal but the question should be is it lawful according to the constitution.
Our founders believed our rights are given to us by God, our humanity, not by the state.
Our founders would be shocked if they could see us now.
Charlie has a point,the government is way out of control.

So if you have done absolutely nothing wrong and are stopped randomly by a law enforcement officer for a pat-down and checking your ID, you would not care one iota and would not ask why or be mad about it?

I know I have been randomly pulled over while driving equipment down the road.

Understood. Innocent people are never set up and there are no innocent people in jail. I know you know that isn't true so I'm assuming you are just playing the odds and are good with complying knowing that most likely nothing bad will happen. I think you're right that you'd likely be fine and nothing bad would happen. I'm also sure their are people entangled in legal chaos right now who thought the same thing.

I guess if it happened multiple times it would be annoying. I've never considered it being a scenario that would effect me