Quote:

---

10 LC 34 2350
House Bill 875

By: Representative Franklin of the 43rd
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

To amend Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, so as to repeal Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses; provide for a short title; to report the findings of the General Assembly regarding the constitutionality of certain laws relating to drivers' licenses; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
SECTION 1.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Travel Act."
SECTION 2.
The General Assembly finds that:

(1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;

(2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta:
It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.

(3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Georgia are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights;

(4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel;

(5) In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel "is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association...it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights;

(6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and decent manner; and

(7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and convert that right into a privilege.
SECTION 3.
Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, is amended by repealing Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses, and designating said chapter as reserved.
SECTION 4.
This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.
SECTION 5.
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb875.htm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

This is so utterly stupid.

It's not the travelling that is prohibited without a driver's licence, it's the operation of a motor vehicle.

Which is utterly sensible! It IS a privilege earned by learning how to operate it and proving it in a test. It can be revoked by demonstrable inability to adhere to traffic rules and operate a motor vehicle safely.

Why? Motor vehicles are fucking dangerous when used without skill or responsibility.

Travel is a right. Driving is not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
In the realm of unintended consequences, this is gonna make enforcing immigration laws more difficult.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LiLi:
Um, people are allowed to travel without a driving license. Sure, someone else needs to be doing the driving, but no one is barred from the bus or other public transit system because they haven't passed the test or are physically incapable of operating a motor vehicle. Much like the public roads, these transit systems are available to everyone. So what, exactly, is the problem?


Facts are stubborn things.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

PN, you do not get to use your own "news" website as a citation for your claims. Seriously.

Back those claims up with credible sources.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

What disturbs me most about driver's licenses is how they've become synonymous with personal identification. Now there's facial recognition technology, and some new biometric driver's licenses include fingerprint imaging recognition and remote instant electronic verification matching.

The assumption here, of course, is that everyone is a potential criminal. The assurance that it's just security to protect people's driver's licenses and identities from fraud is a misdirect, what they're really doing is developing facial profile and fingerprint profile databases.

I'm pretty sure that violates the fourth amendment protecting against search and seizure without warrant. Not that the DoJ particularly cares.

---