close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

No Refusal DWI Checkpoints

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Random, Dec 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. glock_collector

    glock_collector

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2011
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no problem with a quick sober check, I act decent and get the same in return. If they save 1 childs life by causing a 2 min delay in your schedule...big deal. Lose a loved one to a drunk driver and lets see what you think.
     
  2. Jonesee

    Jonesee

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,284
    Likes Received:
    822

    I don't understand. Why did you use the rationale that signing your license gives the police the right., then turn right around and say this.

    The license really doesn't make a difference does it?
     

  3. ray9898

    ray9898

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    14,717
    Likes Received:
    2,218
    Location:
    Georgia
    freedom hater!:wavey:
     
  4. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    25,416
    Likes Received:
    3,320
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    This is a late 20th century interpretation of travel.

    Are you implying that the founding fathers would have said that travel by means of the day (horses, boats, carriage) would have been a "privilege" and not a "right"? This is teh exact same argument as the govt saying owning a firearm is a "privilege" and not a "right"

    We (collectively as a society) have simply accepted the notion that travel by common means of the day is a privilege.
     
  5. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's break down what "implied consent" actually means. You are forced at gunpoint by the gov't to pay for roads through taxation. In order to use the roads you paid for, you are forced by the gov't to sign a waiver of your 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself against same gov't. So in short, the gov't is forcing you to force yourself to violate your own rights in order to use what you were forced to pay for.

    Sounds a lot like racketeering. :dunno:
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  6. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    25,416
    Likes Received:
    3,320
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    Nope.

    Just because something is legal,doesnt mean that I must support it nor does something being illegal mean I must be against it.

    Moral (ethical) and legal are can be mutually exclusive terms.

    It is LEGAL for me to screw around on my wife; it is not MORAL (ethical) for me to engage in such activities.
     
  7. ray9898

    ray9898

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    14,717
    Likes Received:
    2,218
    Location:
    Georgia
    Not really...implied consent is more focused on the states right to suspend your license simply for refusing to provide the voluntary sample you agreed too. The BAC sample is simply evidence just like any other crime so it can still be obtained by warrant if necessary.

    In reality, you can be placed under arrest, refuse the implied consent sample and get an automatic license suspension, have blood drawn by search warrant and still get convicted with additional punishment for that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  8. JLB768

    JLB768 Old & Grumpy Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Messages:
    9,632
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Indiana
    I've got no problem with DUI checkpoints, but then again, my Uncle was hit by a drunk while on his motorcycle, and left dead in the road. Some time later, he was hit by a second car, that didn't see him in time. The drunk, he drove on home, and went to bed.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  9. RussP

    RussP Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    34,565
    Likes Received:
    5,075
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    They're just trolling you, Officer X.

    They can be let go with a warning, this time...

    :cool:
     
  10. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    18,982
    Likes Received:
    2,807
    Location:
    Alaska, again (for now)
    Except we have a written bill stating ownership of firearms is a right. But nothing saying that you have a right to operate a car, plane, train, or pony.


    Even back then I don't think you got to travel for free. Pretty sure you had to pay. So yes, I'd say that's the definition of priveledge.


    There is no right to travel by any means except by your loafer express.
     
  11. RussP

    RussP Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    34,565
    Likes Received:
    5,075
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    They are bound to? How so? What is the LE coverage between midnight and 3:00am in your area?
     
  12. Jonesee

    Jonesee

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,284
    Likes Received:
    822

    Highest and best use of their law enforcement resources...

    You go fish in the desert, I will go to a stocked lake. I won't catch all the fish, but I bet I catch more than you.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  13. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's gobs of judicial precedence confirming that travel/driving is a right, not a privilege. Few persue it in minor traffic cases, however.

    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml
     
  14. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    18,982
    Likes Received:
    2,807
    Location:
    Alaska, again (for now)
    Oh, don't get me wrong travel is a right.

    But you choose to travel in an automobile, means you must obey the limitations and restrictions you agreed to abide when you got a liscense.

    You do not have a right to get in a car without a liscense and do as you please.
     
  15. RussP

    RussP Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    34,565
    Likes Received:
    5,075
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    So you do not know if your statement that they are "bound to pass a policeman on the way hom [sic]" is true or not.

    Have you ever been stopped for DUI, or what ever the designation is in your area?
     
  16. ray9898

    ray9898

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    14,717
    Likes Received:
    2,218
    Location:
    Georgia
    Many of the very rulings cited agree it is subject to regulation. You have a right to travel but driving a car, flying a plane, boating all have regulations attached to make such travel lawful.
     
  17. Jonesee

    Jonesee

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,284
    Likes Received:
    822

    I admit that there is no guarantee they will pass a policeman.

    I am saying if they are serious about getting impaired drivers off the streeet it makes more sense to watch those areas of high concentration of bars and those drivers coming out of those parking lots. That is a much more wise utilization of law enforcement resources than hoping a drunk passes an officer on patrol, or setting up a road block in a semi residential area and pulling everyone over that passes even though the closest bar is 15 miles away.

    Are you disagreeing with that?


    I HAVE NEVER EVER BEEN STOPPED FOR DUI!!!!
    I have however gone through DUI checkpoints 5 miles from my home in Florida frequently even though I lived in what was a dry county and the nearest bar was miles away. I was not exageraring when I said I have probably been through them about 100 times.

    To me that is a total WASTE of resources. In business I would never ever allow that to happen. I only have so many employees and they can only work so many hours. I make sure their time is used in the most productive way possible. Anything else is a waste of time, effort and money. It would seem law enforcement should do the same.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  18. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    25,416
    Likes Received:
    3,320
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    Wouldnt it be great if you were actually correct???

    9 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace

    (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architecturaland Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

    So does 9 U.S.C. § 40103 not apply any more since it is inconvenient?
     
  19. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    25,416
    Likes Received:
    3,320
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 618, Shapiro v Thomson, No. 9 Argued: May 1, 1968 --- Decided: April 21, 1969

    This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.


    So tell me how "all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited" has not been interpreted as a right to travel?
     
  20. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    25,416
    Likes Received:
    3,320
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    ISnt it great that a cop thinks that 49 U.S.C. § 40103 doesnt exist?

    So tell me, how Shapiro v. Thompson, decided when cars were in use and that 'all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited" is not a right.

    Or does Shapiro v. Thompson not apply because you dont like it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.