Gun Control argument: Driving is a privilege not a right.

[WOT?*]

Discuss.

My understanding is that it is a right as well as a privilege. Not permitting travel by car in this current age means that the right of travel/transport is limited for those who do not have ready access to public transportation or live far distances where foot travel is not a viable means...and we all know that horse travel isn't all that in the age of trains, planes and automobiles. But travel on thoroughfares is a privilege that requires licensing, insurance, and following laws for the safety of society as a whole.

Et cetera.

I've got some gun-rights dude using the argument who says driving is an absolute privilege and not a right and requiring things like insurance infringes on that right. Gun control advocates are bringing forward the argument but not having luck with the "cars are a privilege" arguments. I think case law re: cars says otherwise but I'm not a ConLaw expert by any means.

[debatethis]

Too bad the courts disagree with him.

www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html

In 1999, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, ruled that there simply is no “fundamental right to drive.

“Typically, if a right is going to be limited, restricted or revoked, there must be 'due process' – the right to a hearing – and there must be a good basis for the revocation or restriction,” Lykins said. “The privilege to drive is a benefit that is extended based upon certain requirements being satisfied.”

In order to legally drive, the state requires people to be of age and have a valid operator’s permit.

To restrict or revoke a privilege sometimes requires some form of due process, but this is not as strictly required.

“While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.”

Case law also holds that the safety of the public can outweigh the ability of the individual to drive.


That last line should be in big, bold, 24 pt font as it applies to the gun control debate. Because it's the same argument SCOTUS has affirmed - no right is completely unlimited and public safety outweighs.

[WOT?*]

Isn't this bolstering his argument that driving is a privilege and not a Constitutional right? "Nothing in the Constitution says you have a right to drive. Second Amendment gives you the right to own a gun" argument. So driving is a privilege. Or am I reading this all wrong? (Like I said, I'm no scholar. Lol.)

Except for the last two paragraphs. Those turn the argument on its ear, imo. But "driving a car is a privilege not a right" rears its ugly head again.

I thought there was case law language stating driving as a right (generally 14th Amendment language follows), but with attendant privileges and responsibilities.

[shauni27]

This is what infuriates me. It is such a good comparison, but gun rights advocates always just say that cars are a privilege and not a right, so putting restrictions on cars and driving is fine but doing so with gun ownership and guns is unconstitutional. It is really hard to argue with that since the court essentially agrees.

But I really think that debatethis says it best--no right is completely unlimited and public safety can outweigh a right. So WHY has this not been used to help with some common sense gun control?

[TR]

I don't know about case law, but I would view driving as a privilege. However, that doesn't mean that the right to bear arms should be without restrictions. I don't think one has anything to do with the other.

[anlo]

I would respond that you have the constitutional right to free speech, unless you do harm to another person (through false statements), in which you case you have committed libel/slander. Which is a crime.

So, even constitutional rights must be regulated to prevent harm to other people.

[al320]

Maybe he should come up with an argument more solid than a loose analogy?

[WOT?*]

Used the "crowded theater" analogy several posts ago. No response to that beyond "travel between states is a constitutional right. Driving your car isn't." And the rest was ignored. Lol.
Off to "chat" some more with him.

[alexis]

I haven't read the whole thing, but this paper argues that the courts used to view the right to travel as fundamental as any other and struck down early attempts to regulate automobile usage. Although the author clearly views auto regulation as a loss of freedom.

He doesn't really detail the shift in perception, but does seem to think that the shift away from seeing driving as a right to seeing it as a privilege was a way to exert control over car usage.

I think it's an interesting analog to guns and balancing individual rights against public safety. Even though the author views auto regulation negatively, I think it shows that we are able to regulate a right without losing it completely.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1772042

[carmenere]

I think that’s a bullshit excuse to dismiss a valid comparison, because pro-gun folks have no real answer as to why we regulate cars/drivers and all other types of public safety hazards but not guns.

In a constitutional context (and I’m not a scholar either, this is just my opinion) it’s comparable to the freedoms of speech and assembly, which are a right within reasonable boundaries. When someone crosses the line of potentially causing harm (e.g. hate speech or violent protests) safety concerns outweigh those rights.

[WOT?*]

Somebody (or several somebodies more likely, judging by the size of the thread) brought it up so he's responding. He started his own string based on "cars and home loans" probably based on a comment about cars and homes needing to be insured. (I did comment about cars required by law and homes by the banks so two different bases of argument.) capscapscaps

Off to read your paper alexis. Thanks to all who are commenting. This has always been an interesting debate to me.

[turnipthebeet]

I don't know how you guys do it. I can barely stand to read about these arguments secondhand here, let alone engage in them for real. Unless it were a close friend whose mind I thought could be changed, I wouldn't bother.

To be clear, I'm saying I would not engage with people who post ridiculous memes or articles. The most I would do is weigh in with a fact based dispute, and then would not engage further. They are just as convinced of changing your mind as you are of changing theirs.

[ECB]

Nov 7, 2017 16:38:03 GMT -5 capscapscaps said:

Ask him why he's so hung up on driving, which is not captured in the Constitution, instead of your very valid points of restrictions on the First Amendment. Which is apples to apples instead of apples to potatoes.

Seriously- this.  The First Amendment (which is about a topic that can't actually KILL PEOPLE) has restrictions.  Why is the 2nd Amendment above any restrictions>??!

[WOT?*]

Nov 7, 2017 16:52:48 GMT -5 turnipthebeet said:

I don't know how you guys do it. I can barely stand to read about these arguments secondhand here, let alone engage in them for real. Unless it were a close friend whose mind I thought could be changed, I wouldn't bother.

To be clear, I'm saying I would not engage with people who post ridiculous memes or articles. The most I would do is weigh in with a fact based dispute, and then would not engage further. They are just as convinced of changing your mind as you are of changing theirs.

I don't engage for him (or them). I engage for the others who aren't sure which side of the fence to fall. That's what I keep telling myself. I'm honestly glad to see others make the same or similar arguments upthread or in different threads. I view my part as bolstering theirs so they're not fighting a losing battle alone. If we're all quiet, they assume they have the stronger position (which is how, imo, the Tea Party came about and how progressives are taking over the Democratic Party because the "moderates/centrists" didn't have "excitement" (because we were hounded into private groups instead of being willing to be badgered and harassed by Bros and Trumpists, and "Bernie had 75% support in Washington" when in reality it was only 47% in the one-person/one-vote primaries.)


ETA:
And they are arguing "but there are restrictions." Background checks are restrictions.

Oh, and leftists get up in arms about Voter ID restrictions (heaven forbid somebody have to PAY to get an ID!!!), but GUNS! are the Debbil and need all the restrictions! is a particular favorite I saw. I thought you'd enjoy that one as much as I did.

(I'm letting others take those discussions, if any, because they're nonsense. Sticking to the one I've got going currently, at least for the next few minutes before I have to get on with other things.)

[alexis]

Nov 7, 2017 17:00:57 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

Nov 7, 2017 16:52:48 GMT -5 turnipthebeet said:

I don't know how you guys do it. I can barely stand to read about these arguments secondhand here, let alone engage in them for real. Unless it were a close friend whose mind I thought could be changed, I wouldn't bother.

To be clear, I'm saying I would not engage with people who post ridiculous memes or articles. The most I would do is weigh in with a fact based dispute, and then would not engage further. They are just as convinced of changing your mind as you are of changing theirs.

I don't engage for him (or them). I engage for the others who aren't sure which side of the fence to fall. That's what I keep telling myself. I'm honestly glad to see others make the same or similar arguments upthread or in different threads. I view my part as bolstering theirs so they're not fighting a losing battle alone. If we're all quiet, they assume they have the stronger position (which is how, imo, the Tea Party came about and how progressives are taking over the Democratic Party because the "moderates/centrists" didn't have "excitement" (because we were hounded into private groups instead of being willing to be badgered and harassed by Bros and Trumpists, and "Bernie had 75% support in Washington" when in reality it was only 47% in the one-person/one-vote primaries.)


ETA:
And they are arguing "but there are restrictions." Background checks are restrictions.

Oh, and leftists get up in arms about Voter ID restrictions (heaven forbid somebody have to PAY to get an ID!!!), but GUNS! are the Debbil and need all the restrictions! is a particular favorite I saw. I thought you'd enjoy that one as much as I did.

(I'm letting others take those discussions, if any, because they're nonsense. Sticking to the one I've got going currently, at least for the next few minutes before I have to get on with other things.)

Yes,I argue not for the person I'm arguing with, but for people who are watching and may be swayed. I mainly know very conservative people, and I realized years ago that I was letting them control the narrative. I decided not to do that anymore.

Also, I know it seems futile, but minds can change. I have gone a complete 180 on many things. Gun control was the first thing I changed my mind on. I have a friend who is also from a very conservative background, and she had been shifting left. She directly attributed this shift to things her friends post on FB.

The thing is you're never going to see the positive results. No one in a FB argument is going to end it by admitting they were wrong and they've changed their views. People don't change like that. It's a long, slow, gradual process, but it only happens if people keep arguing.