How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 111605
Experience:  JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law
10285032
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Drivers licence vs traveler---is it correct that i do not need

Customer Question

drivers licence vs traveler---is it correct that i do not need a drivers licence to drive my personal car as a traveler, and will a state id be just as good for identification
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  CalAttorney2 replied 1 year ago.
Dear Customer, thank you for using our service. I would like to assist you today. Responses may have a short delay for review and research.
You must have a driver's license in order to drive in the state of Nevada (or any other state). An out of state driver's license will be used in the state if you are visiting or working in the state temporarily. An out of state ID will not allow you to drive (if you are found driving on public roadways without a valid driver's license you will be ticketed for driving without a license).
If you are moving to Nevada (meaning you will be relocating your primary residence there for more than 30 days), you will need to obtain a Nevada Driver's license - see: http://www.dmvnv.com/newresident.htm
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
SORRY TO SAY THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT--THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DRIVING FOR A BUSINESS WHERE MONEY IS MADE AND A TRAVELER WHERE IT IS JUST FOR PLEASURE. TO ENLIGHTEN YOU ON THE LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE FOR FREEDOM OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PERSUTE OF HAPPINESS, CHECK OUT UPDATE 3 OCTOBER 2010 STATE OF GEORGIA,FOR RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT A DRIVERS LICENSE, AND JUSTICE TOLMAN OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON--HE DESCRIBED THE DIFFERENCE OF DRIVING FOR PAY OR PROFIT WHICH HE STATES IS A PRIVALIGE, AND TRAVELING FOR PLEASURE, WHICH IS A RIGHT GARRENTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA--THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHTS AND PRIVLIGES. NOT TRYING TO BE SARCASTIC--BUT YOU SHOULD READ UP AND KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT--- IN THIS CASE I AM TOTALLY UNSATISFIED WITH YOUR ANSWER, AND AM NOT WILLING TO PAY FOR INFORMATION THAT IS COMPLETELY WRONG. ANOTHER POINT IS THAT YOU SHOULD PULL UP ONLINE CHARLES SPRINKLE--CAL RESIDENT THAT HAS NOT HAD A DRIVERS LICENSE FOR 37 YEARS--IF YOU HAVE ALREADY CHARGED MY CREDIT CARD, PLEASE REVERSE THE CHARGE--YOUR ANSWER WAS TOTALLY WRONG.
Expert:  CalAttorney2 replied 1 year ago.
Dear Customer,
I am going to "opt out" and allow another expert to follow up with you.
Please do not post any further at this time as it will delay the next expert's ability to follow up.
If you need any assistance in the meantime, please contact our customer service at: http://ww2.justanswer.com/help
Thank you for using our forum, and I do wish you the best of luck.
Bill
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 1 year ago.
Thank you for your question. I am a different contributor and I look forward to working with you to provide you the information you are seeking for educational purposes only.
I am afraid that your arguments are based on the Sovereign Citizen theories that the right to travel is a Constitutional Right and that grants them the right to refuse to obtain a driver's license. I am afraid that while the right of a citizen to travel is a right, that does not mean they have a right to operate a motor vehicle on a public road without a license. Thus, while the government may not stop you from traveling on the roads or between states (as the case law these sovereign groups tout state) that does not mean someone can operate a motor vehicle (even if they are using it to travel) without a license. There has been no recent case law that has upheld these claims and held that a state law implicates the right to travel when it actually deters travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses a classification that serves to penalize the exercise of the right. Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903, 106 S.Ct. 2317, 90 L.Ed.2d 899 (1986). The courts further add, the issuance of certificates for driving, which confer all the same driving privileges as driver licenses, is clearly not designed primarily to impede travel and can hardly be said to deter or penalize travel. See: League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523 (6th Cir., 2007). To the extent this inconvenience of obtaining a license burdens exercise of the right to travel at all, the burden is incidental and negligible, insufficient to implicate denial of the right to travel. See Town of Southold v. Town of East Hampton, 477 F.3d 38, 54 (2d Cir.2007). The state is not forbidding you a license, it is the sovereign citizen claim they do not need to obey state or federal laws and hence a voluntary choice to try to drive without one.
I am afraid, thus, the previous expert was correct. Many people including some famous people such as Wesley Snipes have followed these sovereign citizen beliefs and have been convicted and sentenced to prison. However, the driver's license not needed to travel is a myth and it is not supported by any court including the US Supreme Court, which contrary to the arguments of sovereign citizens is still the law of the land.

Related Legal Questions