Skip to comments.Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses
Posted on 02/01/2011 9:50:28 PM PST by speciallybland
ATLANTA -- A state lawmaker from Marietta is sponsoring a bill that seeks to do away with Georgia driver's licenses.
State Rep. Bobby Franklin, R-Marietta, has filed House Bill 7, calling it the "Right to Travel Act."
In his bill, Franklin states, "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."
Franklin told CBS Atlanta News that driver's licenses are a throw back to oppressive times. Agents of the state demanding your papers," he said. "Were getting that way here.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsatlanta.com ...
I have no idea who he is get him started in the Repub primary sounds good.
I’m conservative - but this guy’s a fruitcake. I don’t want my daughter drivin’ down the road sharing the highway with God knows what imbecile who may not have any common sense [much less driving ability] ...
Do you think not having a drivers license keeps those idiots from driving?
The only real good they do is allow the cops to check quickly to see if there are any warrants out on you.
Nutbar. Showing some basic competency and a general knowledge of the rules of the road is an absolute requirement for the safety of everyone.
I think this is a little over the line. OK, a LOT over the line.
You need to ensure the people on the road know the rules of the road. States have the complete right (and obligation) to ensure the safety of its citizenry (NOT a Federal obligation).
This kind of silly stuff is what gives Libertarians a bad name. Driving is not a right and we need licenses because of the harm someone can do with a motor vehicle.
I guess all the problems in Georgia have been solved.
While I understand where he’s coming from with this idea (less government) it doesn’t make it any less of a dumb idea.
I have some libertarian tendencies but have always thought driving should be a right not a privilege.
The roads have as many incompetent drivers as they would without licenses. The answer is to imprison those drinking and driving or give heavy fines for truly reckless driving.
Fundamentally, the primary requirement should be that one be able to pay for any damage one does. If one wants to post $150,000 collateral, fine. If one can convince an insurance company to insure one, fine. It's unlikely that an insurance company would want to ensure a driver who had not passed some sort of competency test, and it's unlikely that someone who could afford to post $150,000 collateral wouldn't want to seek out some training to minimize the risk of having to pay it out, but governments have abused their claim that transportation is a privilege rather than a right; while it may be politically tough to buck the trend, I'm glad some politician at least recognizes the issue.
Um, not! Driving a motor vehicle is not an unalienable right. Driving a motor vehicle is a priviledge, subject to demonstration that a person is competent in controlling a vehicle capable of causing severe injury and/or death.
Here is an actual pic of this dude sitting at his job.
Actually traveling freely is an inalienable right. Having to beg the governments permission is just another part of giving up our rights.
The proper was to govern and keep the streets as safe as possible is to punish anyone severely who abuses that right.
No, flying a plane at the current state of development is not even close to driving a car.
I am not a pilot but I think it takes hundreds of hours of training to be a decent one. Probably thousands to be a great one.
All US citizens are perfectly free to travel on US roads and highways.
They can ride in the speed and comfort of a car, ride in the speed and comfort of a bus, ride a bicycle, and as far as I am aware, ride a horse or drive a horse and buggy, all without a license. They are also free to hitchhike, as long as they follow the applicable laws - again, without any license whatsoever.
They MAY NOT, however, operate the statistically single most-lethal weapon in the United States (the automobile) without appropriate training and qualification.
LOL, the court have already found you do have a right to travel and therefore a license. That is why all states give drunks limited usage license.
Everyone says it is a training issue but after you get your license at 16 you are never checked again, except maybe for vision. So get the license once and have it expire when you turn 70 or so.
Then humans discovered the wheel. No one said it was not a right to have a wheeled vehicle, or charged fees to use them.
Then humans domesticated oxen and horses, which were hitched to wheeled vehicles, making it possible for people to travel farther, faster, and to transport heavier objects. No one charged a fee, and said it was not a right to use horses, oxen, and vehicles pulled by such animals.
Then humans invented horseless carriages. At first, they were not charged fees to use such vehicles, nor did anyone claim it was only a "privilege" to own and use them.
Then humans in government discovered how to use the concept of licenses to make money and control the people. They convinced the people of the need for licenses and fees, wrote laws to require them, and that's how personal transportation became a privilege and not a natural right.
Beyond it being an idiotic idea, this just encourages more leftist voter fraud.
Actually... when you think about it...
the “driving test” is not a valid test.
Ok, take NJ (please take NJ). I don’t know what it’s like now, but I drove around some cones, took a 20-question multiple choice, got my license, then IMMEDIATELY drove out onto Route 46 in Fairfield - 3 lanes of non-stop traffic (a lot of traffic 24 hours a day, let alone during the day). you have to see it to believe it.
One had to gun whatever car one was in and get to 40 in a few seconds (NJ, where the weak are killed and eaten).
Pulling out onto the road was the test. The cones were a WASTE.
A personal Photo ID makes a lot of sense, but that does not have to be a license to drive.
There are civil and criminal penalties related to driving; not having licenses would not remove the penalties, other than revoking the license. Replace license revoking the license penalty with n days picking up garbage on rt 80. If the offense is bad enough, jail time (which is what happens now !). There’s just no license to revoke.
Strange as it sounds, it makes sense.
People who are revoked in NJ VERY typically drive anyway - especially the worst offenders who really should not drive.
What do we need the license for, and the tons of people and systems in the state maintaining it all. It’s got to be millions.
And we’d still have the license plate on the car, which is linked to the VIN of the car.
And the state photo ID card could use the person’s SSN as the ID (what a novel idea, actually be in sync with Federal data).
Then, the auto Registration (license plate) is tied via the Owner’s SSN to the person, where right now it’s tied via the driver lic #.
I think the “driver license” is obsolete maybe. Everything we do is tied by SSN, bank accounts, etc. Driver lic. # seems to just be an ancillary piece of data to everyone but the state you live in.
Riding a horse was a privilege of the nobility. The peons could walk.
Then require high limits of liability policies, and let the insurers demand a test of competency.
Why does the government have to carry out this function? Have they done well in weeding out incompetent drivers?
“Driving is not a right”
Can you cite an authority or produce an argument to support that statement?
Equal Protection Clause: Illegals don’t need a license, so citizen should’t need them, either.
Also, suspending and revoking doesn’t stop the worst of the worst drivers from sharing the roads with your daughter, or anyone else. They are routinely out there everyday, killing and maiming and destroying property. Not a bit different than ‘gun control’ measures, either: the criminal ALWAYS ignores the law, by definition.
A driver’s license, like a SSN has become a defacto government ID...even though my SS card says, “For Social Security and tax purposes - NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION” on the front of it. The other half, detachable “keep in a safeplace”, half is even more explicit about NOT giving your SSN to ANYONE, except your employer, tax officials, and official communications with SSA about one’s account.
Now, it they get serious about that “equal protection” thing, well maybe then citizens might be less supportive of this proposal.
Of if a Social Security Number were only use to make sure that the Social Security taxes you paid went to your account?
This guy may be a bit nutty, but living in a world where a driver's license is required to be a passenger on a plane, and a Social Security number is required to get a department store credit card can drive anyone a bit whacko!
I am always amazed at the so called conservatives on this board who talk about “privileges” as if, in a democratic republic such as this, there were a power able to grant such privileges.
Driving is not a privilege. The right to travel from place to place is a god given right. Everything else is cowards who don’t know how to drive defensively. Every day you take life into your own hands. The highways are no different.
God I’m tired .of pretend conservatives who only want to use the power of government to force others into their own ends.
I second that.
Well, okay, free people have the right to travel; no argument there. I'm not so sure they have the right to drive 3K pound cars at 90 mph on the freeway without some basic knowledge of how to drive and which side of the road to drive on.
He’s got it exactly backwards. We should do what the Germans do. Make getting your license mean something. Make sure you really know how to drive, or you flunk. Then get rid of the speed limits!
The good Representative actually has it right. Under the 14th Amendment you have an inalienable right to travel freely on public highways and waterways.
Just where do you get the idea that driving’s NOT a right? Oh, right, that’s what government agents said when they were trying to justify their brand-new control mechanism way back in the day. Talk about buying the lie!!! Just what is so magical about that piece of government wastepaper, anyway? It does NOTHING to indicate COMPETENCE; it only proves COMPLIANCE!
Sadly, the driver’s “license” laws are on a par with the concealed carry laws of many states: government converts an inalienable RIGHT into a government controlled PRIVILEGE and way too many of you are right there, on your knees, shining your master’s boots with your tongue. WHY?
Indeed! Well said!
I took my son to get his learner’s permit - NYS.
He barely passed. The clerk asked him if he wanted to review the questions and answers to the ones he got wrong.
His answer: Nope.
He did not drive my car home. He did not drive any of my other cars until he passed MY exam (basic competency).
Then there’s my daughter. Called me the other day to tell me how much fun it was to drive in the snow (putting the car through its paces).
When I verbally cringed, she reminded me of how I taught her how cars performed in snow - skidding, doughnuts, powerbraking, you name it.
I made her do it all in training so she would understand and experience it.
What could I say ?
The last time I was out on the road that's all there was out there.
Bravo! Spoken like a sovereign citizen not a subject.
Really disheartening to see so many alleged “Conservatives” piling on to pillory this guy for actually understanding that in order to exercise the right to travel freely Driving IS indeed a RIGHT.
Sad so many have swallowed the “Privilege” propaganda so completely.
I would have expected better from this site.
>> Bravo! Spoken like a sovereign citizen not a subject.
Don’t get me wrong, the lawmaker’s proposal is intriguing. But what other mechanism would provide controls for keeping the habitual 100 MPH drunkard safely apart from the family of 4 heading to the local fair? In the case of not being jailed, how is the drunkard accounted for if the goal is to keep him off the road? Is he issued a restraining order?
I’m not defending Statism, but instead the practical means to separate the reckless from regular folks.
Licenses also provide some degree of fraud protection, but that’s a separate issue from transportation.
>> Sad so many have swallowed the Privilege propaganda so completely.
It’s a good test for those that claim to be Libertarians. Most would probably fail.
I’m not sure this is a good litmus test for Conservatives since many lean towards Statism.
Ya might want to pop out of your cocoon for a breather... this happens every single day on US roads WITH "proper" licensing! so it would have little impact in this discussion, just as with any other "bad behavior", the Law is supposed to take care of the miscreants that violate another citizens rights.
Im not defending Statism, but instead the practical means to separate the reckless from regular folks.
That is what laws are for... they just need to be enforced when required... someone gets behind the wheel and places other citizens in danger, then prosecute them and I mean really throw the book at them, But don't throw a net over the entire populace for the actions of a small handful.
Who does he think he is, Ron nutcase Paul?
They do it anyways. Twenty times convicted drunks, keep driving. Illegals drive. Old, blind, twenty pills a day elderly drive. Pot heads, heroin shooters, cell phone yackers.....
What a dumb idea. Licensing of a driver shows they have received training in driving. After that it’s just updating your driver license and making sure you can still see. While I realize anyone without a license can drive a car, it’s nice to know that most people have gone through some training before getting behind the wheel.
Odd. I can, and Americans can since time immemorial, go out, build a two hundred foot ship and pilot it anywhere, if it is mine, no papers needed.