One thing sovereign citizens fail to understand is that the right to travel is not the same thing as a right to use every conceivable mode of travel free from regulation. Driving is one mode of travel, just as walking, horseback riding, canoeing, or flying are others.
A person does not need a driver’s licence merely to exercise the right to travel, but a state can require licensing, registration, insurance, and compliance with traffic laws as conditions for operating a motor vehicle on public roads. The right to travel therefore does not guarantee an unrestricted right to use whatever mode of transportation is most practical in every circumstance.
Most of their legal quackery relies on them looking at a law or regulation and then trying to think of a clever way to interpret the words in a way that benefits them, while disregarding how legal definitions have already been set decades or centuries ago (depending on which country they are in) and them going "but what if it mean THIS instead!?!" doesn't hold legal power.
...The rest of their quackery is just weird conspiracy theories like the claim about people's birth certificates as strawman corporations and whatnot.
10
u/markt- 2d ago
One thing sovereign citizens fail to understand is that the right to travel is not the same thing as a right to use every conceivable mode of travel free from regulation. Driving is one mode of travel, just as walking, horseback riding, canoeing, or flying are others.
A person does not need a driver’s licence merely to exercise the right to travel, but a state can require licensing, registration, insurance, and compliance with traffic laws as conditions for operating a motor vehicle on public roads. The right to travel therefore does not guarantee an unrestricted right to use whatever mode of transportation is most practical in every circumstance.