Rebels without a clue.
Boring or not one would think that the motivation would be to prove to the rest of us sheeple how they are right and we are fools.
One channel I watch is Audit the Audit where various police/citizen interactions are collected from other channels and graded A to F, along with citations to the relevant statute(s). Because of the nature of the channels they are collected from most of the videos give the cops a poor grade* and the citizen a poor to good one depending on how much of a dumb ass they are. Some of them, while not getting into SovCit territory, the cops get a good mark for handling an aggravating situation well.
One video a driver was pulled over for a traffic infraction and had 32 weapons in his car including two pistols on his person – he was a firearms instructor. As the scene unfolded there was no drama and I was thinking this is the way it should be. Both sides got an A but it was kind of boring.
*Occasionally there were ones where the street cop was abusing their authority then the supervisor arrived with a, “What the hell are you doing?” and let the citizen go on their way.
You only think so because you are sane.
I’d love to see a video where the sov cit pulls typical nonsense and the cop says “Ooo, I never thought of it that way. You’re traveling, not driving - yep, makes perfect sense. So sorry, on your way, Mr. Motorist!”
I don’t think they exist.
Maybe some where out there once upon a time a cop got really confused and just let the driver go. But these days sov-nuttery is so highly publicized that officers know what’s going on and don’t tolerate it.
Similarly, I highly doubt any sov cit could show legit paperwork from a government authority excusing them from a tax bill on sov cit grounds.
Get back to me when Ms Dildo runs for Prime Minister of Canada, and wins. 
Why would she want to be Queen and Prime Minister? I don’t suppose that arrangement has ever occurred to King Chuck across the pond in Old Blighty.
On a different note, wrt the driving v traveling dichotomy, is there statutory evidence that a SovCit is by default guaranteed safe passage while traveling upon government-built-and-maintained right-of-ways? Wouldn’t entering one of those right-of-ways in itself constitute the creation of joinder on the part of the SovCit?
Wouldn’t that require a constitutional convention to change the procedure? There’s no direct vote for Prime Minister in Canada, but apparently that’s been a source of confusion for many of your fellow Canadians.
This is the most misunderstood SovCit argument by the Sov, those that laugh at them and the cops. I have never seen this specific argument addressed by a judge and I hope they know the correct meaning of the right to travel.
The right to travel dates back to the Articles of Confederation in Article 4 (hence the now-apparently defunct “Article 4 Travelers”) and refers to traveling across state lines.
Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other State of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.
Although not explicitly written into the Constitution, it has been understood that the Right to Travel is enshrined in the Privileges and Immunities Clause both in the original draft and in the 14th Amendment. This has been confirmed in the landmark case Saenz v. Roe wherein the right to travel
protects [1] the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, [2] the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, [3] for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.
In other words, Arizona cannot prevent someone from crossing the border from California. Moreover, if a Californian wanted to move to Arizona, The Copper State can’t say, “No, we already got too many of you people here.” Right to Travel has absolutely nothing to do with intrastate travel.
Specific to your question, license, registration and liability insurance are not needed if the vehicle stays on private property and in some jurisdictions very short runs on a public street like getting from one side of your farm to the other.
I believe (IANAL or legal expert of any kind) that this is a major reason why there is a reciprocity law among the states for driver’s licenses, where having a license in one state allows you to legally drive in every state. Otherwise, naturally you’d have to be cautious about crossing state lines if you end up in a place where your license is not recognized.
That being said, you still need a license of some kind (generally from the state you claim residence in) and you can’t get away with not having one at all. So this completely defeats the “I don’t need a license to drive” argument they make.
That’s obviously a misinterpretation of the question. How could they believe that they directly elected the PM when his name was nowhere on the ballot, except in his own personal riding, where he was simply running for a seat in parliament? Saying “I voted for Mark Carney” or whatever is just shorthand for “I voted for the candidate representing this leader’s party in my riding because I like this leader and want him to be PM”.
Incidentally, Ms Dildo wasn’t on the ballot. In the US of A, Trump was. And 77,302,580 Americans said “sounds good to me!”.
I think that is simply a compact between the states. I know other states had issues with 14-15 year old drivers on Montana licenses and one state (I forget which) accidently worded their license so it was only valid in that state.
Sure, but the reason why they’d have such a compact might lie at least partially in making certain that interstate travel is facilitated, as required by law. (In addition to it just being common sense, I’d think.)
Which again, ironically works against the SovCits who are trying to use this as justification for not needing a license.
Their argument is that since they have a “right to travel” (see above) a state is barred from putting any restrictions on you rights under the Constitution and case law. Let’s forget for a second that it is not really a RtT issue; the government restricts our rights all of the time for the common good My Freedom of Speech does not allow me to libel or slander. My Freedom of Religion does not allow me to sacrifice babies to Morloch, My right to bear arms does not allow me to carry around a concealed bazooka. &c.
I think it’s about convenience but under RtT states don’t have to facilitate you crossing state line, they merely have to allow it. It would not be unconstitutional for a state to allow you to enter but ban you from driving. Bus stop is over there!
There is an old principle along the lines of, “your personal rights end where mine begin”. Which is a simplified way of reminding people that their own conduct can affect other people, and the law might inconvenience you to protect others, as it should.
In this particular case, the government has an interest in screening people ahead of time to ensure that motorists who present a danger on the roads are not allowed to operate vehicles. That might mean restricting legal driving to people who have proved ahead of time that they are capable of safely doing so (which your driver’s test, vision checks, and other requirements to getting a license do) and also revoking that privilege when they show they can’t be safe (like a person with a habit of driving under the influence).
Wow, you sure are happy to see me!
It’s not that big.
That package does seem oddly plumped up though. Perhaps even turgid.
Of course California threw that in the trash during the Great Depression:
But Moloch! Won’t someone think about Moloch?