For most of us in today’s society, driving is essential for the pusuit of happiness while owning and/or bearing a gun is merely an option that most people don’t even bother exercise.
If the US constitution were written today by the same founding fathers, don’t you think that Americans would have the right to drive a vehicle ?
As for guns, I would suggest that they are as neccessary to an American citizen as an MP 3 player. I can’t see a need to enshrine a right for either.
They didn’t include the right to own/ride a horse or sail on a boat. Why would they view cars any differently?
The right exists as a safeguard against tyranny. Whether that is true or not an argument can certainly be made to that effect, and the writers believed that argument and stated quite clearly that this was why the right was necessary.
Can you really make a cogent argument that an MP3 players s provide some sort of safeguard against tyranny?
Ditto for driving. You might be able to argue that an ability to drive is needed by some members of a modern militia, but the vast majority of soldiers never need to drive. IOW it falls into the same category as reading and writing did when the constitution was framed. The fact that there is no enshrined right to literacy tells us the attitude towards that sort of argument.
Well, didn’t loud music eventually drive Manuel Noriega into surrendering?
Anyway, I don’t see anything “rather odd” about the OP’s observation. At most, perhaps it’s an oversight on the part of the framers that they didn’t specifically protect freedom of movement within the country.
Canada, however, does. Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section Six. Once again, I have license to be smug.
But no one in revolutionary era would have ever considered banning someone who legally owned a horse from riding it (I assume, if anyone knows of pre-modern era “driving-ban” style laws I’d like to hear about them).
And presumably likewise for “boats” (I could imagine the piloting of larger “ships” may have been regulated in certain circumstances.
Not really, no. Consider that the folks who framed the Constitution had just won a war against what was probably the most powerful empire in history, and they did so in part (initially at least) because of privately owned firearms. They considered armed citizen militia to be MUCH preferred to standing armies, which they saw as potentially oppressive.
Perhaps. If you think this is going to let you out of getting a drivers license though, you are sadly mistaken. Even with an explicit right in the 2nd Amendment a license is still required in many states to carry said firearm…and in some it’s required just to own one.
No…not particularly. I think that driving is a privilege. I don’t think that any modern day FF are looking to enshrine your right to keep and drive a car, either.
Luckily you don’t get to decide that, ehe? However, your suggestion has been noted and filed in the appropriate (round) receptacle…
Interesting that the example of a boat or horse would come up, because I’ve been thinking that our rights to freedom of movement are becoming greatly eroded.
Whether it’s tolls or hassles with TSA, the response usually seems to be, “Well you don’t HAVE to drive on the interstate or fly on commercial airliners.”
Well, what then? Drive from Maine to Florida via back roads?
I realize our infrastructure funds need to come from somewhere, but this sort of thing is beginning to bother me. And it worries me a lot more than gun rights.
There used to be a line in the New Mexico constitution about how a person couldn’t be deprived of their primary mode of transportation. I don’t know if that still exists.
There are many places in this nation where not being able to drive can actually render a person homeless.
Pretty much my position. Provided that a passage exists that is navigable by foot or mule then you’re freedom to travel is not restricted. You’ve got a right to pursue faster/more comfortable means of transport if that makes you happy, but I see no reason why your fellow taxpayers should have to provide it for free.
You want to travel on society’s roads, you pay society’s fees.
Now there are some exceptions to this when having a car becomes a necessity for life, not just happiness. And that necessity is often caused by poor planning on behalf of the state. So in some circumstances a car or public transport probably is a right.
But just because you choose to live in Maine and holiday in Florida? No way.
You don’t have a right to unlimited free speech in a public library or courtroom, all rights are qualified. You do have a constitutional right to travel among the states and that presumes using methods of transportation. Driving presumes that you are physically able to drive and have understanding of the rules of the road and how to safely drive. Assuming that you have a license and no prohibition and meet the other qualifications, you can sue in courts and be allowed to drive if for some reason you are not allowed. The garbage that is spewed forth about driving only being a privilege is wrong and a legal shorthand. In my opinion, worth as little as it is, a healthy law abiding citizen who can drive meets the qualifications for the right to drive.
I’ve represented a stroke victim who had her license revoked automatically as required in California. (I also re-taught her to drive after her stroke.) California has a test that is more difficult (according to the examiners) for rehabilitated stroke victims. We did appeals to allow her to take the test several times and we had rights to further appeals had she not passed one of the retests. Her driving skills were typical of people 70 or older.
The Flower People certainly thought so ;). Music in general, I mean, not MP3 players specifically. Music’s a powerful inspiration tool - it’s no wonder it’s been used so often for propaganda purposes by tyrants. Why wouldn’t it be an essential tool to fight against them ?
That said, and at the risk of derailing the thread, I wonder : you need a license to drive. Do you need a license to ride a horse alongside/on the road ? How about a horse-drawn vehicle ?
From 1695, and continuing through most of the 18th century, Catholics in Ireland were (among other disabilities) forbidden to own a horse worth more than five pounds. (The stated purpose was not so much to prevent them from travelling as to keep them from owning horses suitable for military service. But the penal laws were also directed at keeping Catholics in an economically oppressed condition.)
People have a right to bear arms, but the the state doesn’t buy people firearms or build them shooting ranges, they have to purchase those out of their own funds. If all you can afford is a sharp stick then all you get is a sharp stick. That doesn’t infringe on the right to bear arms.
People have a right to travel, but the state doesn’t have to buy people cars or build them highways. They have to purchase those out of their own funds. If all you can afford is a pair of sneakers then all you get is a pair of sneakers. That doesn’t infringe on travel.
A few people seem to think that having a right to do something means that the state has an obligation to assist you to do it. Uh uh. So long as the state doesn’t actively prevent you from doing it then your rights aren’t being infringed on.
The state doesn’t have to buy you a car or a rifle, and it doesn’t have to build you a shooting range or a highway. If it chooses to provide those things it can then charge you a fee to use them or make you sit a test to show you can use them safely.
So long as it doesn’t prevent you obtaining a rifle and using it on a shooting range on your own land, or prevent you buying a car and driving it on a road on your own land there can’t be even an implication that it’s infringing on your rights.
