(10-10-2015 09:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  My biggest point is that the situation should be discussed, not swept under a rug (and called "politicizing it" if you even talk about it) until your own loved ones get killed.

Maybe we should do a better job of enforcing the laws already in place.

(10-10-2015 10:37 AM)Policiious Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 02:06 PM)calvin12 Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 01:29 PM)Policiious Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:36 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 08:47 AM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  [quote='Huskie_Jon' pid='12473029' dateline='14442246

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Right to Drive is included in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution

The "United States Supreme Court" has ruled that:

22.1 Undoubtedly the "RIGHT" of locomotion, the "RIGHT" to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the "RIGHT," ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a "RIGHT" secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution. See: Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274

23. Thus, there can be little doubt that, when this Citizen travels upon the roadways, he does so, as a matter of "RIGHT" and not a privilege granted by the State.

All rights including those in the Bill of Rights can be regulated and have limitations. As such states are allowed to require auto owners to have vehicle insurance.

Requiring a gun owner to have insurance does not limit their rights to own as many as they want, any type of lawful weapon they want,carry them on their person (if permitted); what insurance does do is provide economic redress to other individuals harmed by accidental product useage, especially when the owner may not have the economic means to make the person they have injured whole.

Rights and their use, also carry responsibilities. If gun accidents weren't so common, this wouldn't be an issue

what you quoted has nothing to do with driving. It simply stated you have the right to travel, the means of conveyance are not addressed.

I have yet to travel on an expressway that allows bicyclists or skate boarders use of the roadway, therefore transporting oneself independently on an expressway would entail either driving a motor vehicle or motorcycle; therefore the Supreme Court has recognized that Citizens have a Right to Drive and that it is not a privilege granted by a State. "the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination; the Supreme Court is speaking about motorized transport; don't be daft or obtuse.

That Right to Drive does come with restrictions (speed limits, no passing zones) and regulation (the ability to pass a drivers license test, auto insurance among them). A motor vehicle in the possession of someone incapable of operating it correctly and safely is a weapon of destruction; as are guns. Universal Background Checks on all gun and ammo purchases along with the requirement of liability insurance would reduce some of the deaths caused by the misuse guns and liability insurance would help make whole those injured by careless and accidental gun useage.

One way of ensuring that all gun owners have liability insurance is to require it upon issue or renewal of a FOID card

the decision you quoted specifically states "roadways" not highways. Also buses are perfectly legal on highways.

Also what hte court writes is what the court means, it does not mean "lets leave out important words like "motorized transport". It means exactly what it says. People are allowed to travel freely between locations, it has nothing to do with the manner of conveyance.