A quick Google search shows that 28 CFR 29.1 is regulations for the “Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act” which allows the attorney general to implement a program where people can put a sticker on their car which means cops can then stop and verify that they’re the vehicle owners.
That doesn’t mean license plates are optional. Normally I just smirk and move on feeling superior, however they rarely cite something as easy to Google as the CFR.
Lol wait, so it’s actually telling cops to please search this vehicle?
That’s just way too funny.
In the 1980s, millions of parents took their children to be fingerprinted in the name of safety just in case they were kidnapped or something. It was very strange. I think that they were really arguing that people should do this so that their childrens’ bodies could be identified.
I remember this - in grade school we had a field trip to the local jail. They showed us around (I remember being freaked out by the toilets and cameras!), told us if we didn’t respect our parents and the cops that we’d end up in jail there, then fingerprinted us all. This was 1985 and I’m sure it required a permission slip but jesus what a weird thing to do to little kids.
Parents didn’t even need to take the kids anywhere. They did that shit to us at school, and then put a little packet together to take home to your parents.
Yeah it was for our safety. I remember doing it.
I’ve had a couple jobs that required it again anyways.
I’d be surprised if most of those kids fingerprint records still even exist. Most of my old school records are long gone.
Driving without legal plates is essentially this, even when it doesn’t cite laws.
“DO NOT TOW OR MOVE” will deter exactly zero tow truck drivers.
“DO NOT TOW OR MOVE” will deter exactly zero tow truck drivers.
Shoot, being legally parked with all of your vehicle plates/tags/registration/etc in order isn’t enough to deter some tow truck drivers.
There’s a company in my area that actively, regularly engages in predatory towing. All they have to do is claim someone called about it and be unable to produce records because of some computer issue. If they choose their targets carefully, they either get:
A: free money
B: free salvage
Even if someone DOES manage to sue and win, that’s maybe 5% or less of the vehicles they tow. They seem to deem that an acceptable hit rate for free money.
Go ask anyone who tows inside the city limits of a major metropolitan area what percentage of vehicles get reclaimed after being towed.
If a company is willing to throw ethics out the window and drown the predatory tows in a flood of legitimate work, there’s apparently extra money to be made.
Worst case scenario the company that practices such things fires someone for “making too many mistakes on the job” and they go get a tow job elsewhere because there’s a massive shortage of tow trucks seemingly everywhere.
Much of the towing industry is a half-step above organized crime.
Hey if you are interested there could be some money in it for you. Talk to a lawyer about a class action. You could be the class representative and that would be nice.
That would require proving that the decisions to do predatory towing were made all the way up at the top and actually written down or typed out somewhere.
These are carbon-copy and cash register businesses that just happen to HAVE computers. A few with bigger fleets and GPS in the trucks run dispatch calls through computers, but most of them (from what I’ve seen myself and heard from friends/acquaintances who work in tow yards) don’t actually USE them for the day-to-day work.
Any attempt at a case stops at discovery.
The cops don’t care and there’s no real threat of meaningful punishment for the companies at fault so it’ll continue.
Thanks for the suggestion though. It’s a thought I’ve had previously and looked into.
Any attempt to regulate towing companies further that might cut into this kind of business will see another city-wide tow slowdown, though. Things were REALLY bad when our major metropolitan area started talking about passing idling laws and requiring GPS dongles.
There was a 3+ day to a week backlog of cars waiting for tow. Local law enforcement was cutting deals with individual companies just to get accidents cleared to the side. They’re all private businesses so they don’t HAVE to operate if they don’t want to.
I thought they were sovereign citizens. Why are these retards citing federal and state laws at all in the first place?
They think the law is magic, and that lawyers and the police are like the fae folk.
All of their rules are written down, and if you can just find the right magic words you can free yourself from the system. Cops can only arrest you if you consent, which requires you to say the special words that tell them you don’t accept their authority: you’re a sovereign citizen, not a US corporate citizen, because the police only have authority over people who agree to be bound by the rules that bind US citizens.
And the courts only have authority if you accept it, and you don’t have to if you recognize that that the flag they’re flying openly declares this court to be under a different jurisdiction, because only maritime flags have a fringe, and so the court isn’t actually a US court but a maritime court, so you can petition for a change of jurisdiction to a different court, but you have to be careful not to accept any of their authority or accidentally bind yourself to taking responsibility for the secret shell company that the US created for you that is your name spelled in ALL CAPS, otherwise you’re bound by their rules.
It’s entirely bonkers, and based on layers of not understanding the law, magical thinking, conspiratorial thinking, and being taken in by a scam.
If you’re really rich, a lot of this holds true. There are plenty of gaps in the laws, which those with enough wealth exploit. There are endless loopholes, ways to manipulate the truth, delay, outspend and exhaust legal proceedings.
To a law-illiterate outside observer whose main experience with the system is popular fiction and media coverage of how the law applies to the wealthy, it does look like a game where finding the right loophole will set you free.
These sadsacks are lost in the weeds. They see the injustice of the balance of power in western society, but with inflated egos and lacking any understanding of the systems of power they are under, they think they can play at the same table as the wealthy.
I almost feel sorry for them, but they generally don’t see a problem with the system oppressing other people, they just don’t want it to apply to them personally.
If you focus on the part of the declaration of Independence that says “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” it kind of is true.
But that’s a societal consent and not individual consent. Either we all reject it or they enforce it unilaterally on those that don’t anyway.
Believe it or not, that’s what they usually do.
They point to specific laws, which they wildly misinterpret, and say that these laws have loopholes which allow them to opt out of regulations, or even contain flaws large enough that the entire authority of government is invalid.
They think that they are essentially citing ORIGINAL English Common Law that existed prior to the establishment of the US. A lot of what they argue would have made sense in the time before there was a US Constitution that changed/replaced a lot of that and then the centuries of the country progressing into the future and all the changes that entails.
Wouldn’t that make them British citizens then?
(I know I’m uselessly trying to bring logic into this)
I had to look all of these up.
Definitions section for U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 2. Literally just defines terms used elsewhere. Contains no actual laws, regulations, or rights. It does not define “NOT FOR HIRE”, but it does define “motor vehicle” as referencing only vehicles used for commercial purposes. They’re probably trying to indicate that since they are not operating for commercial purposes then it is not a “motor vehicle” for the purposes of the law, but are choosing to ignore that these definitions are for chapter 2 only.
Importantly, nothing else they cite is from Title 18, Chapter 2.
Provides the groundwork for taking civil action in the event that your rights are violated. Specifies that any person violating another’s rights is liable for that action. Does not at any point say anything about soliciting.
As mentioned by @darganon@lemmy.world, provides the Attorney General with the authority to implement a theft protection program that involves vehicle owners providing consent to have their vehicles arbitrarily stopped and investigated as a potential theft.
Literally the opposite of what these people (and most others, to be fair), would want.
Specifies that US federal employees are not permitted to embezzle or steal property that comes into their possession as part of their jobs.
Has nothing to do with private property, its definition, or associated rights.
Fairly colourful legal language that basically means people who claim or appear to be acting in accordance with the law still aren’t permitted to violate your rights. Notable for actually being about what they say it is, an assertion of their rights when dealing with law enforcement.
Also a bit about racism and unnecessary violence in the name of the law being bad. Police probably could use a refresher on this one.
This one is actually hilarious on the heels of calling themselves “not for hire” to skirt the definition of “motor vehicle” under 18 U.S. Code 31, since the entirety of UCC is specifically about people engaged in commercial transactions.
Adding “all rights reserved” basically means that all your rights don’t need to be explicitly stated in agreements or contracts, you have them regardless. It also adds that people can come to agreements outside of the original terms of their contract or rights and this is not a violation.
Lmfao codes to search these people think they’re using irl cheat codes
