Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have to file a title transfer with the DMV every time you buy or sell a car. Even if you don't plan to drive it, you still have to let government knows who owns it. In fact, many states would penalize you for failing to register with the DMV within 30 days. Yeah, it's a big deal because it's what we're already doing.
I really would like to see how you can buy a house and have nobody on the title as an owner. This would solves a lot of mobsters' money laundering problem, not to mention put a lot of lawyers who set up trusts out of business.
.
We've built vehicles, sold them to other farmers with no documentation whatsoever. There was no DMV notification because there is no VIN.
When it comes to cars it is. That is why there is a spot on the title transfer form to put in the amount you sold it for. That way the government knows how much money to charge the new owner in sales tax when they register it in their name.
Also why most people write in they sold it for $100 to save the new buyer the tax hit.
First of all, I get the feeling many here don't really understand the word register:
Your title is recorded with the DMV. Even if you don't have to pay a registration fee, your title is recorded - this is what we call registration. When they look up a license plate, they know exactly who owns that car, every car; even if it's not being driven on public roads.
Here in CA, if you just park the car in your backyard, you still need to obtain a non-operational permit. Again, they know you own that car and they know you are not planning to operate it.... because the car is registered.
.
From my legal brief I submit to the court on any ticket. Most of it applies to all our rights.
LICENSE
It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
"The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort." People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4
"Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent." Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118
In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.
This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.)
In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is:
"a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203
This definition would fall more in line with the "privilege" of carrying on business on the streets.
Most people tend to think that "licensing" is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the licensor which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the licensor.
"A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation." State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487
The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.
Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our "enforcement agencies" been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they "check" our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?
How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her blender or mixer? They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.
First of all, I get the feeling many here don't really understand the word register:
From my legal brief I submit to the court on any ticket. Most of it applies to all our rights.
REGULATION
"In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty." 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 260
and ...
"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission." Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra.
One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative powers. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.
First, let us consider the reasonableness of this statute requiring all persons to be licensed (presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions:
Does the statute accomplish its stated goal? The answer is NO!
The attempted explanation for this regulation "to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as much as possible, that all are competent and qualified."
However, one can keep his license without retesting, from the time he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the person, by merely renewing said license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal.
Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees.
Is the statute reasonable?The answer is NO!
This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires to the Citizen to give up his or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This is exactly the situation in the aviation sector.)
But isn't this what we have now?
The answer is NO! The real purpose of this license is much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has to give the state his/her consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm done and no damaged property.
These prosecutions take place without affording the Citizen of their Constitutional Rights and guarantees such a Right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the Right to counsel, as well as the normal safeguards such as proof of intent and a corpus dilecti and a grand jury indictment. These unconstitutional prosecutions take place because the Citizen is exercising a privilege and has given his/her "implied consent" to legislative enactments designed to control interstate commerce, a regulatable enterprise under the police power of the state.
We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up Constitutional guarantees of "Right" in order to exercise his state "privilege" to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.
We've built vehicles, sold them to other farmers with no documentation whatsoever. There was no DMV notification because there is no VIN.
Rightfully so.....
From my legal brief I submit to the court on any ticket. Most of it applies to all our rights.
TAXING POWER
"Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxation.
The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied." McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316
The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain.
"... It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax ... a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars." Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46
and ...
"If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation." Ibid., Pg. 47
Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument also must fail.
Legally, all I need is a bill of sale for any private property, to prove it is mine. Why would a consent to a title issued by the state, so they now have some ownership, with that contract.
I patented all my property, so the state can never take title of it.
What are you even talking about??
Title transfer is a thing in real estate. It's required by the local government. Are you trying to argue it shouldn't be required? Well, ok. I'm the wrong person to take this grievance to.
I'm thinking that anyone who makes guns for their self and advertises it on a public discussion board and other social media is probably making them and selling them to other people as well. What other reason would there be to publicly post about it if not to promote and advertise their product to prospective customers online?
Keep thinking. You'll find another reason.
I point this out occasionally, but the one thing I learned better than anything while I was playing cards is that psychological projection is MUCH more common than people generally think it is. People apply it all day, every day.
For instance, the ONLY reason you say you can think of that a person would be talking about a thing that they built for themselves is because they want to break the law.
Me? My first thought is, "A hobbyist built a thing that they're proud of." You? They want to break the law.
Driving is a privilege as driving is done in employment for profit.
Traveling is for leisure, and a right protected by the 9th amendment.
My car is not a motor vehicle it is my Private Property, protected by the 9th amendment. My means of travel is the common conveyance of the day, as the horse & buggy was at the turn of the last century.
Government cannot turn an endowed right into a privilege.
Keeping and bearing arms is an endowed right, that shall not be infringed upon by any man, not just government. People have rights with or without government.
"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:
For the life of me, I cannot understand why more people do not take advantage of these things?!!
Its obvious they were created for our benefit, so the Govt could be kept on a leash...so why in hell is everyone complying with the Govt on this, when they dont have to? That is so bizarre.
Title transfer is a thing in real estate. It's required by the local government. Are you trying to argue it shouldn't be required? Well, ok. I'm the wrong person to take this grievance to.
.
Real Estate.... Means it is not Private Property. Real Estate is property incorporated and you lease it. State holds title, you get the deed.
Actual private property(land) still exists, but its acreage throughout the USA get smaller and smaller every day, as very old family property gets divided and sold off, the County/Parish takes title first with the buyer only a co-buyer at that point.
Once your land has no lien(still paying for it) and you get the Deed, file for title and file & place a patent on your land and watch government flip ****!
A patent cannot be taxed.
"You cannot patent, or copyright land" Bull****.... Remember, you are just a sovereign as the very government committing fraud upon your person..... File it and watch the fireworks.... They cannot do anything about it, nor take your property ever, for any reason.
If they place your land (Lot 2, Section 5, plot 4.........)on a document, sue them for patent copyright infringement. for 1 million for each use, in each document.
Title transfer is a thing in real estate. It's required by the local government. Are you trying to argue it shouldn't be required? Well, ok. I'm the wrong person to take this grievance to.
.
Do I need title to a ghost gun I made myself?
You get a deed(if paid in full), not title. You can file for title and make it private property, but they do not like that and will try to tell you that is not possible..... Question their jurisdiction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
