Vampires in Tennessee

Posted on December 21, 2012 by Oleg Volk

Turns out that vampires are now real. Stakes won’t work on them because of armor, and other means may be at the defender’s peril because they have official backing. Curious to see how long it will take before the first legal challenge. Also curious why Americans aren’t shunning DHS the same way they shun klansmen.

This entry was posted in civil rights and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Vampires in Tennessee

  1. Matt Collins says:
    December 21, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    “The accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. ” – Art I, Sec 9 – TN Constitution

    “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” – 5th Amendment – US Constitution

  2. Andy says:
    December 22, 2012 at 6:57 am

    Unlike firearms ownership, driving is a privilege, not a right. Many states, Washington for example, have refusal to submit to a breathalyzer or blood test as an offense (either legal or administrative) that would result in the forfeiture or revocation of your license.

    Besides, the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the legality of blood testing for alcohol. I understand the 4th Amendment concern, but look at other offenses that have been committed by no less than the Federal Government that are clear violations of the 4th Amendment that are being ignored by the masses, like the fact that everyone’s communications (phone and Internet both) are monitored. (Warrantless wiretapping, which the Electronic Frontier Foundation was fighting until Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act that gave the NSA (who were doing the spying) and the ISPs and phone companies (Who were cooperating with the NSA) retroactive immunity, thus mooting the Supreme Court challenge. see Hepting v. AT&T and Jewel v. NSA)

    I have no love for drunk drivers. There is no excuse for such a dangerous and irresponsible action. (One could simply do the right thing and not drive while intoxicated. It’s easy: that bottle touches your lips and those keys go elsewhere.) But at the same time that does not excuse the police from violating your rights.

    The solution is to A: stop spying on your own countrymen and B: have a 2 strike law: lock drunk drivers up for 10 years without parole, mandatory, for the first offense, life for the second, and life, no parole, if someone were killed by their actions on a first offense.

    But that’s not going to fly.

    • Paul Koning says:
      December 23, 2012 at 11:26 am

      “Driving is a privilege, not a right”.
      Yes, that’s a commonly heard slogan. But it is wrong. For one thing, it’s simply an application of the right to go where you want to, which is one of the fundamental rights of being a free human. For another, it’s obviously one of the pre-existing rights protected under the 9th Amendment.
      The reason politicians claim driving is a privilege is that they want to take away that right. As Neil Smith expressed it, to “disautomobile” us (the same way they want to disarm us).

  3. Andy says:
    December 22, 2012 at 7:23 am

    Oh, and to add, it’s called “Implied consent” and is codified in TN Code 55-10-406. (TN has COPYRIGHTED their laws? Who does that, and why!? Maybe ignorance of the law is an affirmative defense in TN now…)

    • TheIrishman says:
      December 22, 2012 at 3:08 pm

      Yes, implied consent is used to revoke a license for failure to take a breathalyzer or offer a blood sample. It does NOT allow for forced blood sampling. I’m a commercial driver and am intimately aware of the laws concerning driving. They can request any tests they like, but I still have the right to refuse. Doing so, they can only revoke my license. Just as failing to have my DOT physical done will result in suspension of my commercial license, but they can’t drag me to a doctor to be examined.

      • Flint says:
        December 23, 2012 at 10:41 am

        “Go along with this or we’ll revoke your license, devastating your livelihood” <– not actual consent.

        Consent only works when there is a lack of duress.

        • TheIrishman says:
          December 23, 2012 at 2:38 pm

          I’m not saying it’s right but there is a vast difference between me having a choice of changing careers, than having someone FORCIBLY stick a needle in my arm.

          • Flint says:
            December 24, 2012 at 7:45 am

            At what point does it change over? How much of your hard-earned money do they have to take, before the difference shrinks to meaninglessness? What if they threatened to confiscate your truck?

            What if they threatened to confiscate your house?

            At what point are they taking so much, that it’s irrelevant? It’s a difference of degree, only.

            • TheIrishman says:
              December 24, 2012 at 3:01 pm

              The point at which it changes is the point at which I DO change careers. I have little problem with the hoops I must jump through to perform my job, particularly considering that the destructive force that can be brought to bear by my 40 ton truck far outweighs that of most munitions. It is not a matter of “freedom of travel” in that case. Much like you’d most likely not get on a plane flown by an inebriated pilot, would you want someone operating a 40 ton wrecking ball while high. Neither would my boss.

              I know some will equate this to a means test to exercise their 2A rights. That is far from what I’m trying to say. These are terms of employment, separate from my private life. My boss already requires random drug testing. His truck, his rules.

              As I stated earlier, all they can do is revoke your license. Further than that(such as attempting to forcibly draw blood) would, for me, result in a far different outcome. They can then have their blood samples from the toothmarks on my knuckles.

  4. Bear says:
    December 22, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Andy (“…driving is a privilege, not a right.”), a lot of state and federal courts disagree with you.

    “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

    “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” – Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

    “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

    The term “Public Highway,” in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads, streets, highways-and roadways which the public has a “RIGHT” to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.

    “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. – Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22

    In this connection, it is well to keep in mind that, while the public has an absolute “RIGHT” to the use of the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel, the use of the streets from the purpose of parking automobiles is a privilege, and not a “RIGHT”; and the privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as the city may place as conditions to the exercise of that privilege. See: Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E.2d 135

  5. Andy says:
    December 23, 2012 at 4:03 am

    Reverse order:

    Bear: You can have your license revoked. Meaning you are stuck walking or getting a lift from someone else. They’re not banning you from travel entirely. The right to drive and travel on the public roads has responsibilities: Maintain insurance or a bond, maintain an operator’s license, drive a vehicle that is not a danger to others, etc.
    Why is the requirement to operate a safe vehicle (which can be inspected at any time) any different than requiring the driver to be just as safe. After all, if guns don’t kill people on their own, then why do people advocate ignoring the people and instead focus on the mechanical things? Tools don’t have minds of their own, it’s the people using the tools that have the intellect. Yes, the tools can help to break laws, but I’m sure everyone in the US is capable of breaking laws without any tools (firearms, vehicles, tape recorders, computers, knives, sharp sticks, rocks…) at all.

    As Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago summed it up in you clipping: “…though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.”
    It is in the public interest to stop drunk drivers before somebody gets hurt. It is also more convenient to hold field sobriety checkpoints, and draw blood instead of “breathalyzer, make a fool out of suspect, trip to jail, draw blood, then charge suspect.” and cut down on the amount of damage to one’s evening in case of equipment malfunctions or misunderstandings.

    My beef with this is that people are making a fuss about a government trying to bring down the hammer on people who are abusing their rights by infringingthe rights of everyone else. You can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. You can’t slander or libel another. (1st amendment) You can’t own military grade weapons. (2nd amendment) You can’t deny access at all times to everything you own to the government. (3rd and 4th amendments) You can’t kill another and expect to be tried only once (5th amendment, applying if you’re not in the military) You can’t then expect to be tried the next day (6th amendment, case backlog and all.) You also cannot expect a higher court to not intervene in a civil matter if there was a mistake.(7th) If one is on trial for murder, bail being set at one million dollars is not “excessive” Even if you’ve only got $20. (8th) The 9th amendment offers guidance, not a right. the 10th amendment is stomped on every day by the interstate commerce clause.

    Every RIGHT has a RESPONSIBILITY attached. That responsibility boils down to: “Don’t ‘f’ up other people’s day by doing the wrong thing.” Since people can’t handle that, everyone’s getting equally disadvantaged by a course of action to prevent it.

    Irishman: If you refuse an alcohol test, your license is invalidated. If you then turn around and drive away from said checkpoint after refusal, you go to jail for driving without a valid license. They’re not preventing your freedom to travel, they’re forcing a choice in your operation of a motor vehicle: Comply with the letter of the law or don’t drive. A fine distinction, but if you don’t like it, walk or get a ride from another driver. It’s a little over the top, but I doubt that every last person behind a wheel is going to get blood drawn. It’s likely the same as being hauled off to jail, the order is different (blow/stick/jail/judge instead of blow/jail/stick/judge) but the end result is the same: You’re going to go see a judge in 8-48 hours.

    • Flint says:
      December 23, 2012 at 9:03 am

      A right that is “regulated” might as well be a privilege.

      Oh, and the Second Amendment not only states that you have the right to own military grade weapons, but that’s really /all/ it addresses. It doesn’t say anything about hunting rifles or the like. It /only/ says that arms (military weapons) are protected.

      It’s true that the exercise of one’s rights is limited to not interfering with the free exercise of anyone else’s rights, but driving drunk does not interfere with anyone else’s rights. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater does. Crashing your car into someone else’s car violates his rights, but it does that whether you are drunk or sober.

      All driving drunk does is increase the /odds/ that you will crash your car into someone else’s car. It doesn’t guarantee harm, the way that yelling “fire” in a crowded theater does.

    • TheIrishman says:
      December 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm

      “They’re not preventing your freedom to travel, they’re forcing a choice in your operation of a motor vehicle”
      Yes, I am in agreement with that.
      “It’s a little over the top, but I doubt that every last person behind a wheel is going to get blood drawn”
      The fact that they are considering it is the frightening part. Whether random/those who smell of alcohol/everyone. There is no need to forcibly draw blood to gain the same outcome. I know several people who were convicted of DUI for simply failing a roadside sobriety check(hands out/alphabet/touch nose) and never took a breathalyzer or gave a blood sample. In most jurisdictions, DUI(driving under the influence) carries the same penalty as DWI(driving while intoxicated). The difference is that DUI only requires the police to prove that you are impaired, not that you had a blood alcohol level beyond the legal limit. It is even possible to “pass” a breathalyzer and still be convicted of DUI.

      As the law sits, even in my personal vehicle, my legal limit is .04(half of most peoples). I can fail a breathalyzer even if I can pass the road side test.

Comments are closed.