State of California former assemblymen Richard Katz & former State Senator Quentin Kopp scums for suspended license laws in California California Vehicle Code Sections 14602.6 AND 14607.6 These crooked legislators while in office made California a worse place to live with regulating too many laws against Californian's and allowing towing companies to charge any fees they want on drivin Sacramento, California

I want to make an apology for making this report as if I could remove it I would, I am not a fan of ripoff report as they don’t allow authors to remove or delete or alter reports. No one is perfect as when wrote this report I was upset and now time has passed I had a change of heart and that I want to say I am sorry for writing it.

Author

 The State is still going broke over Richard Katz and former State Senator Quentin Kopp take your vehicle away law.

TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE "

1. The issue is whether this Citizen is required to obey the provisions in Michigan General Statutes. It is the contention of this Citizen that because he is a Free and Natural Person who has given up none of his "RIGHTS." That the General Statutes does not apply to him. It is also the contention of this Citizen that travels upon the streets or highways by this Citizen is an inalienable "RIGHT." Being this, is not subject to regulation or legislation by the State s General Assembly. 2. Let us first consider the contention of this Citizen that travels upon the streets or highways in is a "RIGHT." Various courts have ruled on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

2.1 The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125

3. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:

3.1 The term "

4. The "Supreme Court" of the "State of Illinois" ruled:

4.1 Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22

"Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc., NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..

6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?

6.1 The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;

See: American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 6.2 A Citizen 's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes the right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S. E. 579, 580

6.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways 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. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

7. It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the States have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large. The following are additional court decisions that expound the same facts:

7.1 . The streets and roadways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;

7.2 All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; See: State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.

7.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, obviously differs radically from that of one who makes the highways his principal place of business and uses it for private gain ... See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.

7.4 . While a Citizen has the "RIGHT" to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that "RIGHT" does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion .... See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; See: Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; See: Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention.

8. The "Washington State Supreme Court" stated:

8.1 I am not particularly interested about the rights of haulers by contract, or otherwise, but I am deeply interested in the "RIGHTS" of the public to use the public highways freely for all lawful purposes. See: Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139

9. The "Supreme Court of the State of Indiana" ruled in 1873:

9.1 It is not the amount of travel, the extent of the use of a highway by the public that distinguishes it from a private way or road. It is the "RIGHT" to so use or travel upon it, not its exercise. See: ? Ind 455, 461

10. 11 American Jurisprudence 1st, has this to say:

10.1 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public roadways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added) See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123

11. The "Supreme Court of the State of Georgia" ruled:

11.1 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

12. The "Supreme Court of the State of Colorado" discussed the issue in the following way. 12.1 The Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, & sect; 3 provides that:

All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable "RIGHTS," among which may be reckoned the "RIGHT" .... of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; ....

12.1.1 A motor vehicle is "property" and a person "cannot be deprived" of property without due process of law. The term: "Property," within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the "RIGHT" to make full use of the property which one has the inalienable "RIGHT" to acquire.

12.1.2 Every Citizen has an inalienable "RIGHT" to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. See: People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210

13. The Constitution of the State of Idaho contains the words:

13.1 All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable "RIGHTS," among which are ....; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property .... (Emphasis added).

14. The words of the Idaho Constitution are to all intents and purposes identical with those of the North Carolina Constitution. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, & sect; 1, states as follows:

14.1 The equality and rights of persons. We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

14.2 To be that statutes which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. See: Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677

15. Since courts tend to be consistent in their rulings, it would be expected the Idaho Supreme Court would rule in the same manner as the North Carolina Supreme Court.

16. Other supreme authorities have arrived at similar conclusions:

16.1 The Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9:

16.1.1 The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

17. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, & sect; 36:

17.1 Other rights of the people. The enumeration of rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

18. I demand all of my other rights, including the right to travel upon the public highways and byways in the United States of America.

19. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, & sect;2:

19.1 Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

20. As member of the Sovereignty of the people, I not only am entitled to use the highways and byways in the United States of America. I have an inalienable right to use those highways and byways.

20.1 Highways are public roads which every Citizen has a "RIGHT" to use. See: 3 Angel Highways 3.

20.2 A highway is a passage, road, or street, which every Citizen has a "RIGHT" to use. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

21. I have emphasized the word "RIGHT" because it is a common point among the authorities listed. The Idaho Code even joins in this common point:

21.1 49-301 (13) Street or highway. -- The entire width between property lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of "RIGHT," for purposes of vehicular traffic. See: Idaho Code.

22. The "United States Supreme Court" has ruled that:

22.1 Undoubtedly the "RIGHT" of locomotion, the "RIGHT" to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the "RIGHT," ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a "RIGHT" secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution. See: Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274

...at least concerning the constitutionality of "right" vs. "privilege" regarding driving. Before I get involved with this debate, first let me state that I live in California, and our representatives sit in their ivory towers and seem to do anything they want, except represent us. And despite the horrible economic conditions and the mess this state is in, the lawmakers seem to focus more on ways to fleece the average citizen, instead of what we really need here...jobs.

At the same time, the PUBLIC highways are so dangerous here, and there are so many accidents and unlicensed/uninsured, that I will agree it needs to be dealt with. The roads and highways are a "little" different now then back in 1903, and this is a public safety issue. So while I do not agree that anyone should be able to hop into a 3000 lb weapon and hit the highways without a license and governing laws, I can't find constitutionally where it is written that driving is a privilege.

Where I do have major issue with Los Angeles, is this "jay walking" law. I have not received a fine for that, but have heard people can and do get fined for this. I feel that is unconstitutional, as certainly walking the Earth is a right. Now of course is someone walks out into traffic it can cause a public safety issue, and the person walking into traffic would be responsible for any injured parties, including their own. But if an adult looks both ways, and can see it is clear, how does the State/City have any constitutional right to fine us for crossing a street anywhere we choose?

Here is what I found doing a little legal history research. Basically it is a right, unless using the highways for business/commercial intent/ purposes, and then a "driver" or "operator" technically would not have a "right", or the same rights and privileges since it would be considered a commercial use.

I got the following information from this site [www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/driver_licensing.htm] and anyone can access it. I have copied a few parts, but every term regarding this topic needs to be defined such as "travel" and "license" and "right" etc..it is a sticky topic for sure, but the implications are black and white. I underlined key points as well.

The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as:

"The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717.

"Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

"Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034.

Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.

Notice that in all these definitions the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.

Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.

"The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort." People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4.

"Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent." Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118.

In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.

This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.)

"The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty -- indeed they are under a solemn duty -- to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect...the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution." Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661.

  and...

The courts are "duty bound" to recognize and stop the "stealthy encroachments" which have been made upon the Citizen's Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his property in the "ordinary course of life and business." (Hadfield, supra.)

Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the "due process of law" guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. (Kent, supra.)

The history of this "invasion" of the Citizen's Right to use the public highways shows clearly that the legislature simply found a heretofore untapped source of revenue, got greedy, and attempted to enforce a statute in an unconstitutional manner upon those free and natural individuals who have a Right to travel upon the highways. This was not attempted in an outright action, but in a slow, meticulous, calculated encroachment upon the Citizen's Right to travel.

This position must be accepted unless the prosecutor can show his authority for the position that the "use of the road in the ordinary course of life and business" is a privilege.

To rule in any other manner, without clear authority for an adverse ruling, will infringe upon fundamental and basic concepts of Constitutional law. This position, that a Right cannot be regulated under any guise, must be accepted without concern for the monetary loss of the state.

"Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public." Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.

  and...

  and...

Therefore, the Court's decision in the instant case must be made without the issue of cost to the state being taken into consideration, as that issue is irrelevant. The state cannot lose money that it never had a right to demand from the "Sovereign People."

Finally, we come to the issue of "public policy." It could be argued that the "licensing scheme" of all persons is a matter of "public policy." However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as:

"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution." 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70.

So even "public policy" cannot abrogate this Citizen's Right to travel and to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

  Therefore, it must be concluded that:

  and...

Any other construction of this statute would render it unconstitutional as applied to this Citizen or any Citizen. The Accused therefore moves this court to dismiss the charge against him, with prejudice.

In addition:

Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.

The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.

Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities.

Few if any licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.

No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations.

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke, 1784.

Lord I'm glad I live in Texas, not in California, so I don't have to share a roadway with this d****ebag!  Oh wait---he does't have a car HAHAHA

The entire Idea of a "DRIVING PERMIT" (real name) Is to allow you to traverse the state's private propery (The roads and highways of America) this is NOT Your personal and Private property.

If you choose to drive an unlicensed and uninsured vehicle on your own property there is NO regulation, no one will bother you and you can drive to your heart's content.

But the Highways, streets and Roads of America are NOT YOUR PROPERTY.

They belong to the States who have to grade, pave and maintain THEIR PROPERTY.

Obviously you think it's YOURS, no it's NOT, when did you last  fill and pave a pothole? Mow the grass,grade and fill. add a whole lane, Sub and paving surface.Build a bridge. etc.

The State does that, And the interstates (Owned by the federal Government) are likewise maintained by THEM, not you.

Example, would you like to have a (Say) Coffee shop in the courthouse?

It's NOT yours so you have to rent a space, pay to put in water heat sewage lights, Then  tables and chairs, for this you pay rent, buy insurance and pay power/water bills.

Well, a Driving permit is our permission to RENT the roads (Their property) for your use.

Got it?

NO paying Taxes does NOT mean you "Own" it.

Ok as we all are aware when the constitution was written there were no motor vehicles, as you have posted every citizen has the right to travel but when this was written it would have been on foot, on horseback or by a wagon or carriage of some sort. A car, truck etc. that weighs several thousand pounds is quite a bit different than a horse drawn buggy and is much more difficult to operate than driving a wagon or riding a horse. So one must be taught to drive and then issued a drivers license by the state they live in and yes there are laws on driving said vehicle. Are all of them fair? Probably not but they were put there in an effort to keep everyone safe and to do what is considered right. If your license has been suspended there must be a reason as you must have broken the laws several times proving that you are a menace and should not be driving. Myself I am thankful for these laws as it keeps our roads safer. Are all roads safe? Of course not but that is usually because someone is not obeying the laws that you swore to follow when you signed that license.

The bottom line: Park where you are supposed to, do not drink and drive, and follow the laws of the road.

Right to travel =/= Right to operate a motor vehicle. 

You can't Surrender a right, they're yours, granted by the creator, and inalienable <---means you can't give them up.


your argument is so full of holes that even I could drive through it.

BTW, my sister is blind, never even tried to get her license.  Does that mean she has the right to drive?  Of course not.  She does, however, still have the right to travel.

States have the right to regulate who may, and who may not, operate a motor vehicle.  Where it may, and may not be operated.   Also they can place stipulations on that operation. ie  You must provide adequate liability insurance to legally operate a vehicle, the vehicle must be inspected, taxed, and licensed to operate in the state. You must obey the traffic and parking laws enacted by the government governing the operation of a motor vehicle.   You must exhibit the knowledge and skills to operate a motor vehicle safely (driving tests) before you will be issued a license to operate a motor vehicle.

The license to operate a motor vehicle can be suspended or revoked for repeated violations, or fairly to pay penalties based on those violations.


If you are caught operating a car with a suspended, revoked, or non-existent license, the vehicle will be removed from your operation, towed, and impounded.   

Also, there ARE regulations on the books in California regarding towing and impound lots.   Those operators can charge only rates that are "Reasonable and Customary".   That is, one tow operator can't decide to charge "50-100 dollars a day",  Quick phone checking  "Reasonable and Customary" charges seem to be approximately $30 a day.

You wpuld also have to pay for the tow, and any outstanding tickets on the car. 

The law stipulates a 30 day impound, to prevent an unlicensed driver from simply "Bailing the car out" and keep driving.   

It sounds like you made a mistake and let your brother drive your car.   It's not a ripoff, it's a mistake on your part.  I hope your brother is man enough to come up with the money.   Better luck next time.   If they're not willing to fork over the dough, there's always small claims court.  $75 filing fee, should be a slam dunk case, unless the judge finds that you were negligent in not checking the driver had a license.  Worth a shot. Good luck.

Remember, it's not the government who screwed you, it's your brother.

You think driving is a right - do you think this guy had a rigth to drive??

DENTON Police believe John Patrick Barton was driving drunk when he rear-ended a car carrying the Hull family Sunday morning on Interstate 35E in Lewisville.

Kandace Hull and her daughter Autumn Caudle died in the impact; Barton faces murder charges as a result.

Also in that car were Hull's husband, Tony Hull, who was in good condition Monday at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas; and two other children, 16-year-old Dominique and 12-year-old Jake, who are being treated next door at Children's Medical Center Dallas. Both are expected to recover from their injuries, school officials said.

This was not Barton's first arrest on alcohol-related charges. News 8 has learned that on Easter morning, he was on parole for his third DWI conviction.

According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, it doesn't matter how many times you're convicted the longest your license can be suspended is two years.

And despite two previous DWI convictions in Denton County and a third in Tarrant County, Barton's suspension had expired.

When he walked out of prison in January of last year, Barton's driver's license was valid with no restrictions.

The Hull family car is now barely recognizable, but it doesn't take much to make out the personalized plates of the Mazda 3 that hit them: "SPEED."

Police said John Barton was speeding when he allegedly drove that Mazda into the back of Hull's Nissan sedan Sunday morning. He was on parole for a 2008 felony DWI conviction. A jury sentenced him to three years, but he only served nine months.

When he got out of prison, the Department of Corrections said Barton was supposed to have an interlock device installed on his vehicle as a condition of his parole. It would prevent him from driving drunk.

The Department of Corrections told News 8 that Barton didn't own a car when he was released from prison, so the agency never asked for proof of installation.

The Mazda that was involved in the fatal crash Sunday morning did not have an interlock device.

Lewisville police Capt. Jay Powell said the Mazda was registered to a family member who will not face any charges for letting Barton drive the car. Records show it is Barton's wife who owns the vehicle.

"With him facing certain stipulations, it's up to him to follow the requirements and the guidelines," Powell said. "It's not up the family member to meet those guidelines."

Barton now faces murder charges because of his previous record.

His first DWI arrest was in October, 1997, when he was 17 years old; his second was in January 2000, both in Denton County.

Barton served less than one year in county jail for each offense, and each time the suspension on his driver's license expired when he was released.

Tarrant County prosecutor Richard Alpert said the courts tried to send a message when Barton was arrested in 2006 for a felony, but he still found a way to walk out of prison and get back on the road.

"There is just no way to deal with a person like this," Alpert said. "The justice system doesn't have a mechanism for stopping him, unfortunately, before he commits this type of crime. So the goal now is to make sure he doesn't ever do it again."

Another question: Why was Barton on parole after just nine months behind bars? The Pardon and Parole Board told News 8 that he had completed a three-month program prior to his release.

The reasons cited for his parole approval included successful institutional adjustment and participating in the program while incarcerated

NO driving is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT!

The right to travel is your right to get where you want to go. There is no defination on any motor vehicles are excluded to the right to travel. For example does the law say you can't ride a boat on the highway, even if you can't without water but does it? Does the law say can't ride a desktop on the roadways (may have wheels on it, may classify for someone to travel with it). If your defining your own opinion that a motor vehicle is not a right to drive, then you probably work at the DMV. If you classify what defines a motor vehicle from riding a horse, a boat, walking, skate boarding and etc, they are all related. Motor does not state the term driving is a privilege, the DMV turns your drivers right into a privilege the moment you sign for your drivers license, you surrender yor right to drive when you sign for a license, your terminate your right to drive right there. There is no classifications between a skateboard, a horse, and an automobile, they are all used for traveling. Motor could be anything, a motorized skateboard, a moped, motorized bicycle, a jet pack, motorized skates, for example, all are allowed to drive on the road, street, even the highway, no license. But if you want to apply for a license and surrender your right to drive than that is your business. To go beyond and make a law to take away your property that you own and keep or even sell it for profit is BS.

"In 1996 two scum bag elected politicians former assemblyman Richard Katz (D) and former State Senator Quentin Kopp (I) made a law to would take your car way for 30 days if you drive on a suspended license in corruption state of California and to allow the towing companies to charge whatever fee they wish to impound your car."

Very nice of you to Cite the applicable text from the statutes.

The problem, I think lies in your Mis-interpretation of  that text.

You are right in that you have the right to live, work, travel within and between states whenever you wish.  That does not infer upon you the right to use a motor vehicle in a manner that is contrary to the local, city, state or Federal laws governing the use of a motor vehicle.

Every state in the union has statutes which regulate who may/may not operate a motor vehicle, regulate the manner of operation.  Not only that, but there is a federal system in place to prevent "jurisdiction hopping"   If you lose your license in California, you can't get one in Nevada.

Each state has it's own policies on what will cause a license suspension/revocation.

You have the right to travel under the US Constitution and the public cases. If you drive your car and never applied for a drivers license, you never surrendered your right to drive. If you go to the DMV and you sign the papers for a drivers license, read the fine print, it says you sign the right to drive as a privilege and the State can take away your license at anytime. You made that law? The democrats!

The Constitution says you have a right to travel. Define travel?

Which is-

Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human rights concept which is respected in the constitutions of numerous states. It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present, generally has the right to leave that state, travel wherever the citizen is welcome, and, with proper documentation, return to that state at any time; and also (of equal or greater importance) to travel to, reside in, and/or work in, any part of the state the citizen wishes without interference from the state. Some immigrants' rights advocates assert that human beings have a fundamental human right to mobility not only across states but across nations.

Richard Katz & former State Senator Quentin Kopp are scums for suspended license law in California California Vehicle Code Sections 14602.6 AND 14607.6

This is ludicrous,

Yes, you have a right to travel,  but there's no right to drive a motorized vehicle.  

Yes, California, like most states, can suspend your license for unpaid fines, or failure to maintain insurance, or repeated violations.  That's nothing to onerous, don't park like an idiot, and drive safely.   If you get a ticket, either pay it, or go to court to fight it.

If your license is suspended, don't drive.   You say "What if they mail the ticket to the wrong place."  If you keep your license current with your address, and keep your vehicle registration current,  that's not gonna be a problem, is it?

Yeah, you're right, it's not fair that those towing companies get to charge you rent for storing your car. You've got a right to their property.   Get real.

Rule #1, don't get your license suspended.

Rule #2, if you break rule #1, don't drive until you can rectify that problem.

Rule #3, have a nice day.

 Talk about a bad law. This law from these scumbuckets Richard Katz and Quentin Kopp to think of owning your vehicle even if you had a simple parking ticket, if it wasn't mailed to you or something or if the DMV had a wrong address or something or any mishap if your license gets suspended in California, one pull over by the office bird and your car is in the hands of the towing company charging you $50.00 to over $150.00 a day for 30 days folks. 30 days because of these scum buckets Richard Katz and Quentin Kopp when there were in office back in 1996 which the law is still in the books because of the majority of democrats in office, everything goes to the governor. I mean to sign over 1100 bills into law each year in California, just like of the California Vehicle Code book, in 1995 it was 6 x 4 hand book but now it is a 8 x 11 text book, if you look at all the laws that passed in the last 10 years it is crazy to live in California, the highest tax regulating state there is. And these two scum bag politicans Richard Katz and Quentin Kopp thought they knew back in 1996 to pass we own your car & motorcycle law if you don't have a license and change whatever impounding fee awarded to the towing company that tows your car. I mean it is Las Vegas for the towing companies, they win with this law.

I mean if an repeal were to happen, who were be in the capital steps crying to keep the law, the towing companies and the State governments because a lot of people can't afford to get their cars back and donate them because of the ripoff impounding fees to towing companies.

I mean this is a bad law people, this is a stupid law for making money in California. Sure the ideal of unlicensed drivers but hey they are so concerned about this but their not concerned about all the illegal immigrants living here in California doing American jobs for peanuts which they are using all social care agencies for the US taxpayers to pay for.

I mean really there are so many laws in California as it is, I mean a simple regulation law maybe an idea for the DMV to suspend someone's license because of a technicality of someone else. Another reason to get ride of these I don't know what to pass into law politicans in California.