(via Have You Seen This)
Is he insane or just putting us on?
Because the Constitution never said anything about drivers licenses:
ATLANTA — A state lawmaker from Marietta is sponsoring a bill that seeks to do away with Georgia driver’s licenses.
State Rep. Bobby Franklin, R-Marietta, has filed House Bill 7, calling it the “Right to Travel Act.”
In his bill, Franklin states, “Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right.”
Franklin told CBS Atlanta News that driver’s licenses are a throw back to oppressive times. “Agents of the state demanding your papers,” he said. “We’re getting that way here.”
CBS Atlanta’s Rebekka Schramm asked Franklin, “How are we going to keep up with who’s who and who’s on the roads and who’s not supposed to be on the roads?”
“That’s a great question,” Franklin said. “And I would have to answer that with a question, ‘Why do you need to know who’s who?’”
“What about 12-14-year-olds who want to drive? What would stop them?” Schramm asked.
“Well, what’s stopping them now anyway?” Franklin answered.
But not all drivers are on board with the lawmaker’s idea.
“I think people should be qualified in some way to drive,” Susan Cotton said.
What other bills does he support?
Franklin’s name is on the first 21 bills of the legislative session, including one that would require the exclusive use of gold and silver as tender in payment of debts by or to the state, as required in the Georgia Constitution.
“Can the state really pay in gold and silver?” Schramm asked.
“Sure, and they can write checks on it,” Franklin said. “They can use a debit card as long as what’s denominated behind it is gold and silver.”
Franklin is also behind House Bill 11, which would repeal the authority of the governor to issue mandatory vaccination orders. “I’m a firm believer that no person should be subjected to an invasive medical procedure without their consent,” he said.
“Have you ever had critics say, ‘Look, some of these bills are a waste of paper?’” Schramm asked.
“I can’t speak for what other people think,” Franklin said. “I just know I took an oath to uphold the Constitution,
South Dakota must be getting jealous of all the news from Arizona lately:
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”
The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
(via Boing Boing)