There is no "Right to Drive" in the United States

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, Stubby said:

Read the definition of licence I quoted above and you should be able to answer your own questions.

In that case, there is no right to bear arms according to your standard. There are situations where you need a license to have a gun where otherwise the gun possession is unlawful.

[Stubby]

It's not 'my' standard.  It's the law of licencing as it has been properly settled in western systems for hundreds of years. 

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, Stubby said:

It's not 'my' standard.  It's the law of licencing as it has been properly settled in western systems for hundreds of years. 

When you say 'western', you are just accepting Romano-centrism as a given. When you say 'years' you are assuming that conception of time is objective. When you say 'is' you are accepting the assumption of passive being. Ha, you lose!

(Got your back DM. We will never 'lose' if we never accept 'losing'...or 'we'.)

[DunderMifflin]

13 minutes ago, Stubby said:

It's not 'my' standard.  It's the law of licencing as it has been properly settled in western systems for hundreds of years. 

Saying something isn't an entitlement or a right if it requires license where it would otherwise be illegal is your standard. There's no hundreds of years behind that notion. It's looks like something you made up to fit your opinion.
 

[Stubby]

28 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

When you say 'western', you are just accepting Romano-centrism as a given. When you say 'years' you are assuming that conception of time is objective. When you say 'is' you are accepting the assumption of passive being. Ha, you lose!

(Got your back DM. We will never 'lose' if we never accept 'losing'...or 'we'.)

Actually I'm not just accepting Romano-centrism.  I'm accepting the doctrine of precedent as it's applied in the English-based common law system.  You know, the system that requires Courts to apply law in like case in a like manner?  Which is the single system responsible for all common law in the countries were the majority of those participating in this discussion live?

As to your other two existential philosophical irrelevancies, we are talking about law, which several people in this thread seem to have a problem understanding.

 

26 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Saying something isn't an entitlement or a right if it requires license where it would otherwise be illegal is your standard. There's no hundreds of years behind that notion. It's looks like something you made up to fit your opinion.
 

OK this is flat-out hilarious.

Did you read the authorities I referred you to?  Did I make those up?  Did the highest Courts of England, Australia, Canada, and yes, the USA (among others)apply judicial reasoning over hundreds of years so that you can dismiss their reasoning as 'made up'?  But because you have accused me of making something up, I am going to have to ask you to prove that allegation, as you have just suggested that I am being dishonest.

If you don't retract that allegation or prove it readers here will realise that you are losing and have nothing to back you up.  While you are off googling something to prove your assertion, try these definitions on for size:

Quote

 

license

1) n. governmental permission to perform a particular act (like getting married), conduct a particular business or occupation, operate machinery or vehicles after proving ability to do so safely or use property for a certain purpose. Per law.com (UK definition)

 

But just in case you think I'm still making it up, here's another:

Quote

 

A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort. State v. Hipp, 38 Ohio St. 220; Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406, 20 Am. Rep. 054; Hubman v. State, 61 Ark. 4S2. 33 S. W. 843; Chicago v. Collins, 175 111. 445. 51 N. E. 907, 49 L. R. A. 40S, 67 L. R. A. 224. Per

Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed (USA definition)

 

And for the avoidance of doubt, the definition you think I "made up" was taken directly from the case I cited, as quoted in the Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (3rd Ed).  You are welcome to prove yourself wrong by looking it up. 

[James Arryn]

Oi...

When will I learn that irony doesn't play on the Internet?

You're talking to yourself again, James.

Oh, right.

[Stubby]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Oi...

When will I learn that irony doesn't play on the Internet?

You're talking to yourself again, James.

Oh, right.

You can never be sure these days, given the way the whole thread has gone.

[DunderMifflin]

31 minutes ago, Stubby said:

 

As to your other two existential philosophical irrelevancies, we are talking about law, which several people in this thread seem to have a problem understanding.

No we are not. We are talking about what entitlement means, in or out of law

Quote

OK this is flat-out hilarious.

Did you read the authorities I referred you to?  Did I make those up?  Did the highest Courts of England, Australia, Canada, and yes, the USA (among others)apply judicial reasoning over hundreds of years so that you can dismiss their reasoning as 'made up'?  But because you have accused me of making something up, I am going to have to ask you to prove that allegation, as you have just suggested that I am being dishonest.

If you don't retract that allegation or prove it readers here will realise that you are losing and have nothing to back you up.  While you are off googling something to prove your assertion, try these definitions on for size:

But just in case you think I'm still making it up, here's another:

And for the avoidance of doubt, the definition you think I "made up" was taken directly from the case I cited, as quoted in the Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (3rd Ed).  You are welcome to prove yourself wrong by looking it up. 

Nothing you've shown backs up that something can't be a right or entitlement if it requires license by a government. 

[Stubby]

15 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

No we are not. We are talking about what entitlement means, in or out of law

Nothing you've shown backs up that something can't be a right or entitlement if it requires license by a government. 

The concept of a licence can only be discussed within the realms of law, because it is a legal concept. The term "licence" only exists for legal reasons.

You can of course try and dismiss what Scot and I (both lawyers) have told you about what licencing involves with glib little comments like your second sentence above.  But I would expect you to actually come up with some sort of substantive criticism.  So far, you haven't.  Scot and I are the ones citing evidence, referring you to long established lines of authority, etc.  All you have done is go "But Rights!" ad nauseum.

How about you cite some form of reference for us to consider that contradicts what we have said, other than the "Encyclopedia of DunderMifflin (TM)"?

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, Stubby said:

The concept of a licence can only be discussed within the realms of law, because it is a legal concept. The term "licence" only exists for legal reasons.

You can of course try and dismiss what Scot and I (both lawyers) have told you about what licencing involves with glib little comments like your second sentence above.  But I would expect you to actually come up with some sort of substantive criticism.  So far, you haven't.  Scot and I are the ones citing evidence, referring you to long established lines of authority, etc.  All you have done is go "But Rights!" ad nauseum.

How about you cite some form of reference for us to consider that contradicts what we have said, other than the "Encyclopedia of DunderMifflin (TM)"?

So are you sticking with the claim that it can't be a right or entitlement if a government requires a license or did you abandon that? 

[Stubby]

Where did I say that?

[DunderMifflin]

4 hours ago, Stubby said:

 

The only obvious conclusion is that no-one has a "right" or "entitlement" to do something if a licence is required as to do the thing without the licence is unlawful.

Are you still sticking with this?

Right to bear arms isn't a thing since it does/can require license?

Freedom of speech and assembly also can often require permits.

[Stubby]

19 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Are you still sticking with this?

Right to bear arms isn't a thing since it does/can require license?

Freedom of speech and assembly also can often require permits.

You left something out when you first asked me if I was sticking to a position.  That was "...as to do the thing without the licence is unlawful".

Unlawful is the operative word here.  You are not applying the law in the context in which it applies when you disregard unlawful. 

Federal law does not make it unlawful to buy a gun.  Some other laws do.  The key term, as with all licences, unlawful.

Freedom of speech and assembly require permits because they are not blanket rights as I understand them. So, if you are correctly applying the "unlawful" aspect of the definition, then a licence or permit will be required.

When considering if requiring someone to hold a licence for something is appropriate, the legal test is:

1. Does the govt have the constitutional power to make laws regulating something?

2. If yes, have they made laws regulating (that) something?

3. If yes, would a private citizen be liable to punishment if he/she did (that) something?

4. If yes, (the) something is unlawful.

5. If yes, can the govt then grant licences to approved applicants to do (that) something?

6. If yes, does the private citizen have a valid licence?

Each of these questions must be answered by reference to the evidence in each case.

When you realise that, with respect to driving a car, the answer to the first 5 questions is "yes" then you have the answer to Scot's initial question.

Now, please provide your evidence that I "made up" the definition "to suit me" or retract the allegation.

 

[DunderMifflin]

28 minutes ago, Stubby said:

 

Now, please provide your evidence that I "made up" the definition "to suit me" or retract the allegation.

 

Because you are going to great lengths to try to prove that because a) governments issue licenses (which is what you've shown) that it   therefore means that isn't a right or entitlement if a government issues a license for it (which you haven't shown anything for) 

I say it looks like you just made up that license requirement = not entitlement thing just to have something to back up your point. That's my evidence. 

There's nothing you've shown thats even attempting to make the connection you are trying to make, so Yeh looks like you just made it up to strengthen your argument to me.

 

[Stubby]

7 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Because you are going to great lengths to try to prove that because a) governments issue licenses (which is what you've shown) that it   therefore means that isn't a right or entitlement if a government issues a license for it (which you haven't shown anything for) 

I say it looks like you just made up that license requirement = not entitlement thing just to have something to back up your point. That's my evidence. 

There's nothing you've shown thats even attempting to make the connection you are trying to make, so Yeh looks like you just made it up to strengthen your argument to me.

 

Oh. I see.

It's more of the argument from the Encyclopedia of DunderMifflin, then.  Got it. Not a single substantive point in sight.

Sigh.

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, Stubby said:

Oh. I see.

It's more of the argument from the Encyclopedia of DunderMifflin, then.  Got it.

I didn't say I had concrete proof. I just said it looks like you made it up to strengthen your argument. Because you still haven't backed it up with anything. You've shown that governments issue licenses and claimed a connection that it somehow also proves  there are no rights or entitlements to anything that a government issues a license for.
 
At the very least after pages of this there should be acknowledgement that "entitlement" and "rights" are pretty broad concepts and that no one has any final say or ultimate decision on what it actually is or isnt.
Unless we are going back to the claim where only lawyers know who to read and understand things and no one else does.

[maarsen]

Final says and ultimate decisions are routinely made by Supreme Courts in western countries. I am,pretty sure that is why Supreme is in the title.  BTW,  supreme means ultimate, acme, pinnacle, top, highest...  

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Final says and ultimate decisions are routinely made by Supreme Courts in western countries. I am,pretty sure that is why Supreme is in the title.  BTW,  supreme means ultimate, acme, pinnacle, top, highest...  

Which case did they decide what the word entitlement means and describe all its forms and contexts of acceptable usage?
 I'm not under the authority of any language bureau.

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, DunderMifflin said:

Unless we are going back to the claim where only lawyers know who to read and understand things and no one else does.

You haven't proved this statement false.

[Stubby]

49 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

 I'm not under the authority of any language bureau.

Which means the doctrine of precedent doesn't apply to DM because DM says so.