Out of state ticket = Suspended license in NC??!!! (WTH?) (Star: legally, required)

[Native_Son]

Originally Posted by GA_Freeman

WOW all of you are insane. I defeated a ticket in Cabarrus County, 85 in a 70, mandatory misdemeanor in NC. I went Pro SE, I know who I am and I know the law. Drivers licenses are commercial in nature, started in the 20's to regulate commerce and were adapted to apply to you to collect fines, MONEY, not law is the issue. The right to travel is fundamental and a right cannot be regulated or taxed, see licensing and speed limits. I simply held them to the law, made them prove jurisdiction, filed criminal complaints when they broke the law, filed bar grievances and judicial conduct complaints when they acted up. When you know the law and force them to do what they are supposed to, they just want you to go away. I cost them way more then the $200 they were trying to tell me I had to pay.

you *simply* "held them to the law, made them prove jurisdiction, filed criminal complaints when they broke the law, filed bar grievances and judicial conduct complaints when they acted up."?

lol, I think you and I have different definitions of simple. and insane.

[Francois]

Originally Posted by Machine Head

Edit* I went digging into the DMV handbook and low and behold on page 32 there is a one sentence blurb that says "Get caught speeding out of state and we'll suspend your license in NC."

So now you have your answer.

Originally Posted by GA_Freeman

The right to travel is fundamental and a right cannot be regulated or taxed, see licensing and speed limits.

Operating a motor vehicle is not a "right". That's why people have to meet certain requirements (age, vision, etc) and take tests proving their competence in doing it. Even if there is a "right to travel", it doesn't mean that driving a car is a "right". If it were, 4-year-olds would be able to do it.

[Shooting Stars]

Ever since I read "driving is a privilege" in my first driver's handbook, that statement has never sat well with me. Our ability to provide for ourselves and our families is dependent upon driving in most places.

No matter how many times you write it, I will continue to believe that it should be a right as long as you have the physical and mental ability.

Freedom is a right, but you lose it if you commit a crime that lands you in jail. Driving could be thought of as a right that you could lose if you commit an extreme traffic crime.

If you believe that driving is a privilege, then you believe the government has the right to arbitrarily decide you can't drive anymore. They wouldn't be legally required to give any reason whatsoever and you would have no grounds to do anything about it. That's what you get if you follow "driving is a privilege" to it's logical conclusion.

[Shooting Stars]

Originally Posted by Francois

If it were, 4-year-olds would be able to do it.

Minors have never been given the full rights that adults are entitled to, so that's not really a good argument. They get full rights for the most part at age 18.

[Slinkycat]

Does anyone wonder why one state is involving itself in the violation of laws of that occur in other states? Why even have states then? Just wipe the slate clean of states and have one law universal to all states. How would that sit with you NCer's? Maybe gun laws in NY would start apply here, and why not? Isn't NY the finance capital of the country? He who pays the piper calls the tune so they say, See when you start accepting the premise that one state should start slapping people around for what they did in another state, you've open a can of worms, that is going to be taken to the next level.

[Slinkycat]

Originally Posted by Shooting Stars

Ever since I read "driving is a privilege" in my first driver's handbook, that statement has never sat well with me. Our ability to provide for ourselves and our families is dependent upon driving in most places.

No matter how many times you write it, I will continue to believe that it should be a right as long as you have the physical and mental ability.

Freedom is a right, but you lose it if you commit a crime that lands you in jail. Driving could be thought of as a right that you could lose if you commit an extreme traffic crime.

If you believe that driving is a privilege, then you believe the government has the right to arbitrarily decide you can't drive anymore. They wouldn't be legally required to give any reason whatsoever and you would have no grounds to do anything about it. That's what you get if you follow "driving is a privilege" to it's logical conclusion.

You have quite a few rights that extend beyond the right to travel under Natural Law.

Most of Man's laws are actually unnecessary and really only exist for a few people to control the many.

The laws we do need are already enforced under Natural Law under a myraid natural enforcement channels, so in a sense they are redundant although you can make a plausible argument that they could exist to codify already existing Natural Law rights For example, the Constitution recognizes that rights codified in the Bill of Rights are inherent, that's why the 9th amendment exists. The framers certainly recognized the existence of Natural Law.

If you look at the world of rights you were given by nature, you look at it in a apothetic sense; rather than trying to makes sense of what rights you have (such as the right to travel freely) you should first look at the rights you do NOT have, and once you remove those from the equation, you can see that everything that is left is your Natural Law right that were not given you by the creator (God, or pick your omniscient entity of your choice).

Most of rights you do not have are related to theft - specifically murder, rape and trespass, all of which can be seen as theft. Stealing people's ability to be secure in their person and space and belongings is trespass, it is also theft. Stealing their life, in form of murder is also theft. You can use your imagination here, but it all boils down to theft in one form or another. You can see that most animals do not engage in this behavior unless they want to pay the consequences which Natural Law will eventually enforce (called Karma).

But everything else is a RIGHT that was given you, inherent in your birth, for your own evolutionary progress and development. Once you learn about Natural Law and the role it plays in our lives everyday, with or without man's law, you can be amazed at the amount of freedom you have been given.

[lookyourbest]

i never should've opened this thread...... now i'm scared LOL

[wraleigh]

Back in 2010 (Labor Day weekend) I got a speeding ticket 70 in a 55 and a citation for having a radar detector in Chesterfield, Va. I didn’t give the officer a hard time and acknowledged the ticket. I thought about hiring a lawyer but I didn't. On my court date I drove up and went before the judge/officer myself. I informed the judge I didn’t realize the speed limit had dropped considerably. After a little back and forth, the judge stated that if I paid the $200 fine, court cost and completed driving school by a certain date Va won't notify NC. I paid the fine and mailed in my certificate from driving school (took an online course), case closed. NC never knew about the ticket I received. Two years later, no notice from the state of NC about suspending my license due to what happened in Va.

[dhanu86]

Originally Posted by CHTransplant

So you don't think the state that actually issues a person's driver's license should have any interest in that person's actual compliance with laws applicable to the use of that license, regardless of where it happens? One should be able to break the laws with relative impunity as long as you do it outside of the state's borders?

I for one appreciate the state DMV trying to keep the roads safe against drivers that don't respect the laws. It doesn't matter to me if someone's reckless driving was on I-40 here or somewhere in another state. Still equally indicative of their conduct.

There are many wreckless drivers who get ticketed all the time, but have the money to pay them, so your arguement is flawed.

I get the law about if you get a ticket in a state, never pay it or handle it, and get in trouble in that state again you will be in bigger trouble. But it's wrong that if you're passing through another state and get any type of ticket at all, to fight it you have to come back to that state to go to court for it, so really there is no practical way to fight it. So I'm with the OP on this one.

You have to be very careful when driving out of state because it'll always make more sense to pay the ticket. I've paid tickets from VA, DE, NY online. We should have the technology to put the proof online, like if someone was doing 75 in a 55 zone, proof from the police that should be very easy to reguarly plug online. The current way takes forever and requires people to miss work and go to court more than once.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by GA_Freeman

WOW all of you are insane. I defeated a ticket in Cabarrus County, 85 in a 70, mandatory misdemeanor in NC. I went Pro SE, I know who I am and I know the law. Drivers licenses are commercial in nature, started in the 20's to regulate commerce and were adapted to apply to you to collect fines, MONEY, not law is the issue. The right to travel is fundamental and a right cannot be regulated or taxed, see licensing and speed limits. I simply held them to the law, made them prove jurisdiction, filed criminal complaints when they broke the law, filed bar grievances and judicial conduct complaints when they acted up. When you know the law and force them to do what they are supposed to, they just want you to go away. I cost them way more then the $200 they were trying to tell me I had to pay.

No, they just wanted you to go away because they realized they were dealing with foolishness.

Nothing you said even remotely makes sense here.