Tackling the whole right to travel thing...

Hello folks, back again to clear up some misconceptions about our right to travel. Many people think this gives them the right to drive a motor vehicle on the roads. It does not however. The disconnect comes from our misunderstanding of the words used.

Citizens have a right to travel in their automobile.

Citizens have a right to travel in their motor vehicle.

One of those is correct and one of those is not correct.

One of the main problems with our right to travel is in the object we use to travel in, what is it? an automobile? a car? A motor vehicle? Is there a difference?

http://iamman51.blogspot.com/2017/01/automobile-vs-motor-vehicle.html

So how does the state turn our automobile into a motor vehicle, subject to regulation? They do it thru the title, they split the full title and keep legal title, while you get equitable title.

I only know one sure fire way to obtain full title, that is to pay cash for a new car and obtain the MCO/MSO from the dealer. There are a couple rumors going around the net about a couple other possible ways, we will be testing those and getting back to you with those results, but for now, be cautious with this aspect.

 For those of you with full title, citizen or non citizen, the issue now becomes what is the intent of the car? To this end i have printed stickers letting the world know that my automobile is not for hire and is non commercial.

Some of you have seen those sovereign license plates out there, these do nothing more then show intent, if you dont own full title to your car, these help very little.

Now before you go and reply with that wall of cases that always seems to pop up in this topic, understand this, cases before 1938 are not standing case law. Also, NONE of those cases say citizens have a right to drive/operate a motor vehicle.

Unless you have full title you have a motor vehicle, get it yet?