You can travel our roads with many different types of unregistered vehicles. Some motorized, some not.
One can also tavel by unregistered horse and buggy or by foot.
Ralph
David Hill said:I plan to have an open casket wake, so that when people gaze on my countenance, they will say, "Yeah, he partied."
Not me, instead of dieing in a hospital my plan is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy sh*t ...what a ride!"
David Hill said:
TEEN KILLS BURGLAR IN HOMECorpus Christi, Texas — A 14-year-old boy shot and killed a man who broke into his family’s home Monday and threatened to kill him and his mother, Police Chief Bryan Smith said.
Smith said the man, James Slaughter, confronted a woman as she was carrying groceries into her home shortly before 1 p.m.
Slaughter forced her inside and tied her and her son up. Smith said the woman was able to loosen the binding and free her son, who got his father’s revolver from a security box beneath a bed.
As Slaughter tried to break into the room where the two were and threatened to kill them both, the teen fired a shot through the door and hit James Slaughter in the head, Smith said.
A grand jury ruled that no charges will be filed.
Investigators said the boy was acting in self-defense when he shot 57-year-old James Slaughter.
Corpus Christi’s KRIStv.com
October 9, 2006
Read all about it!
Slaughter slaughtered by 14 year old.
Peaceful James Slaughter, a well known local home invader, rapist and murderer, after helping a woman carry home her groceries, was rudely shot in the head by her 14 year old son. The boy, whose identity is being withheld, apparently felt threatened by Slaughter, and fired his father’s unregistered pistol through the door, fatally wounding Mr. Slaughter.
Steve Featherkile said:David Hill said:
TEEN KILLS BURGLAR IN HOMECorpus Christi, Texas — A 14-year-old boy shot and killed a man who broke into his family’s home Monday and threatened to kill him and his mother, Police Chief Bryan Smith said.
Smith said the man, James Slaughter, confronted a woman as she was carrying groceries into her home shortly before 1 p.m.
Slaughter forced her inside and tied her and her son up. Smith said the woman was able to loosen the binding and free her son, who got his father’s revolver from a security box beneath a bed.
As Slaughter tried to break into the room where the two were and threatened to kill them both, the teen fired a shot through the door and hit James Slaughter in the head, Smith said.
A grand jury ruled that no charges will be filed.
Investigators said the boy was acting in self-defense when he shot 57-year-old James Slaughter.
Corpus Christi’s KRIStv.com
October 9, 2006
Read all about it!Slaughter slaughtered by 14 year old.
Peaceful James Slaughter, a well known local home invader, rapist and murderer, after helping a woman carry home her groceries, was rudely shot in the head by her 14 year old son. The boy, whose identity is being withheld, apparently felt threatened by Slaughter, and fired his father’s unregistered pistol through the door, fatally wounding Mr. Slaughter.
…and thus depriving Mr. Slaughter’s family of their sole source of income. They have sought the advice of legal counsel at the firm of Dewey, Cheetum and Howe, and will file a lawsuit against his attackers.
David,
under ‘common law’, if a thief is able to prove that he makes his living solely by robbery and is injured in carrying out his ‘work’, on your property, he is able to sue for injuries sustained and loss of earnings.
Why am I not surprised. You have goofy laws there supporting criminals.
David,
it is not the legislative law of our land, it is ‘common law’, which is defined as "Common law is law created and refined by judges: a decision in a currently pending legal case depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.
The body of precedent is called “common law” and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision.
Tim Brien said:Here in the USA we have a written Constitution that is the foundation for all our laws. A judge is not able to legislate from the bench.
David, it is not the legislative law of our land, it is 'common law', which is defined as "Common law is law created and refined by judges: a decision in a currently pending legal case depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision.
No guns, to make criminals workplace safer and the ability to sue the criminal’s intended victims if they choose not to cooperate. Now there’s a place I’d like to live.
David Hill said:David, you are actually incorrect. Your legal system follows what is called 'precedent'. When a judge sets a ruling that is outside of what is determined to be the law, then that precedent may be used in other similar cases as a judgement. It sounds very much like 'Common Law' to me.
Here in the USA we have a written Constitution that is the foundation for all our laws. A judge is not able to legislate from the bench.
Tim Brien said:....until the ruling is determined to be unconstitutional at the Supreme Court of The United States. No common law here.David Hill said:David, you are actually incorrect. Your legal system follows what is called 'precedent'. When a judge sets a ruling that is outside of what is determined to be the law, then that precedent may be used in other similar cases as a judgement. It sounds very much like 'Common Law' to me.
Here in the USA we have a written Constitution that is the foundation for all our laws. A judge is not able to legislate from the bench.
David,
try reading a little before closing your mind -
"In common law legal systems (connotation 2), the common law (connotation 1) is crucial to understanding almost all important areas of law. For example, in England and Wales and in most states of the United States, the basic law of contracts, torts and property do not exist in statute, but only in common law (though there may be isolated modifications enacted by statute). In almost all areas of the law (even those where there is a statutory framework, such as contracts for the sale of goods, or the criminal law), legislature-enacted statutes generally give only terse statements of general principle, and the fine boundaries and definitions exist only in the common law (connotation 1). To find out what the precise law is that applies to a particular set of facts, one has to locate precedential decisions on the topic, and reason from those decisions by analogy. To consider but one example, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – but interpretation (that is, determining the fine boundaries, and resolving the tension between the “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses) of each of the important terms was delegated by Article III of the Constitution to the judicial branch, so that the current legal boundaries of the Constitutional text can only be determined by consulting the common law.
In common law jurisdictions, legislatures operate under the assumption that statutes will be interpreted against the backdrop of the pre-existing common law case law and custom, and so may leave a number of things unsaid. For example, in most U.S. states, the criminal statutes are primarily codification of pre-existing common law. (Codification is the process of enacting a statute that collects and restates pre-existing law in a single document - when that pre-existing law is common law, the common law remains relevant to the interpretation of these statutes.) In reliance on this assumption, modern statutes often leave a number of terms and fine distinctions unstated – for example, a statute might be very brief, leaving the precise definition of terms unstated, under the assumption that these fine distinctions will be inherited from pre-existing common law. For this reason, even today American law schools teach the common law of crime as practised in England in 1789, because the backdrop of centuries-old English common law is necessary to interpret and fully understand the literal words of the modern criminal statute."
And further -
“The common law constitutes the basis of the legal systems of: England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, federal law in the United States, the law of individual U.S. States (except Louisiana), federal law in Canada and the individual Provinces (except Quebec civil law), Australia (both federal and individual states).”
Mike isn’t this thread about guns? Contracts, torts and statutes are left to the juristiction of the states. Criminal laws and US citizens God-given Rights are spelled out in the Constitution, not from the bench.
You are talking apples and oranges. Stay on track. excuse the pun
Deleted
David,
in case you missed it in my last posting, I have reinserted it again for your perusal. Very important understanding of what is law.
“To consider but one example, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – but interpretation (that is, determining the fine boundaries, and resolving the tension between the “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses) of each of the important terms was delegated by Article III of the Constitution to the judicial branch, so that the current legal boundaries of the Constitutional text can only be determined by consulting the common law.”
Did you read the bit that said?
“…each of the important terms was delegated by Article III of the Constitution to the judicial branch, so that the current legal boundaries of the Constitutional text can only be determined by consulting the common law.” repeat “…so that the current legal boundaries of the Constitutional text can only be determined by consulting the common law.”
Does this end the matter? I am happy to move on.
TonyWalsham said:
There you go with that God given stuff again.Man made up God.
I guess now you have come out of the closet.
Or is it still your position you’ve never said there is no God?
Ralph
Deleted
TonyWalsham said:Just trying to clarify. You said "Man made up God". Ralph
You guess wrong. Again. I still haven't said there is no God. ;)
Deleted