quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

try reading

I said:

It is also considered a motor vehicle is it is "drawn" by some form of locomotive device.

340.01.(35) “Motor vehicle” means a vehicle, including a combination of 2 or more vehicles or an articulated vehicle, which is self−propelled, except a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail. “Motor vehicle” includes, without limitation, a commercial motor vehicle or a vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated on rails.  A snowmobile and an all−terrain vehicle shall only be considered motor vehicles for purposes made specifically applicable by statute.
340.01.(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except railroad trains. A snowmobile or electric personal assistive mobility device shall not be considered a vehicle except for purposes made specifically applicable by statute.


Uh.......locomotive..........locomotive........locomotive.......nope...

You read the fuckin thing and show me locomotive in one or both definitions (heres a hint:  those 10 statutes are nothing to do with Amish wagons drawn by dray horses, I bet those are entirely different statutes)  but I aint willing to search that much cheesehead law.

"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." Id., at 274.


The Court has suggested on occasion that some more generalized right to movement may exist. See, e.g., Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958) ("Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."); Guest, 383 U.S. at 758, 86 S.Ct. 1170 (proclaiming that citizens of the United States "must have the right to pass and repass through every part of [the country] without interruption, as freely as in [their] own states" (quoting Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35, 49, 18 L.Ed. 745 (1867) (quoting The Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283, 492, 12 L.Ed. 702 (1849) (Taney, C.J., dissenting)))); Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 273, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186 (1900) (indicating that the "right of locomotion," like the "right to contract," is protected by substantive due process). But those comments are only dicta—the cases involved travel across borders, not mere "locomotion."[2] Indeed, the Supreme Court in Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 255, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 39 L.Ed.2d 306 (1974), cast strong doubt on the idea that there was a fundamental right to free movement, noting that "[e]ven a bona fide residence requirement would burden the right to travel if travel meant merely movement." In any event, the Court subsequently made clear that any right to travel involved in Kent and Aptheker was distinct from the recognized right to interstate travel, explaining that international travel is no more than an aspect of liberty that is subject to reasonable government regulation within the bounds of due process, whereas interstate travel is a fundamental right subject to a more exacting standard. See Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 306-07, 101 S.Ct. 2766, 69 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (upholding constitutionality of regulation authorizing the revocation of passport on the ground that the regulation authorized revocation only where the holder's activities in foreign countries are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to national security). Since the right to free movement would cover both interstate and international travel, Agee at least implies that the right recognized by the Court is decidedly more narrow.


Locomotion and locomotive are not always train engines.  Anything supplying the ability to move can be considered locomotive (force).

first day reading law for you I see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

that was in response to rons

no that is not true.  It is also considered a motor vehicle is it is "drawn" by some form of locomotive device.

quote:

340.01.(35) “Motor vehicle” means a vehicle, including a combination of 2 or more vehicles or an articulated vehicle, which is self−propelled, except a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail. “Motor vehicle” includes, without limitation, a commercial motor vehicle or a vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated on rails. A snowmobile and an all−terrain vehicle shall only be considered motor vehicles for purposes made specifically applicable by statute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Yeh!

Here is a prime example of syntax terrorism or as one Judge said "verbicide".

As we can see the definition of vehicle could as well mean also your shoes!

So according to the state "WHAT" is officially "motor vehicles"?

quote:

340.01.(35) “Motor vehicle” means a vehicle, including a combination of 2 or more vehicles or an articulated vehicle, which is self−propelled, except a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail. “Motor vehicle” includes, without limitation, a commercial motor vehicle or a vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated on rails.  A snowmobile and an all−terrain vehicle shall only be considered motor vehicles for purposes made specifically applicable by statute.

340.01.(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except railroad trains. A snowmobile or electric personal assistive mobility device shall not be considered a vehicle except for purposes made specifically applicable by statute.

anyone?

quote:

340.01.(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except railroad trains.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

What is the legal definition of "transported" in the specific statute that defines "motor vehicle" and "vehicle"?

Not a dictionary definition but rather what is the statutory definition of "transported" in the law the OP is being obtuse about?

The legislature may have felt defining "transported" was pointless as noone with above average intelligence could consider shoes a motor vehicle.

Find the statutory definition of "transported" and the OP will then argue at length that the term "mobility" or "device" or "is" should invalidate it.

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse and it tends to be used by Judges to muzzle the brain dead.

good post!  You seem to have a grip on how they operate with respect to their use of words!  you asked for "their" definition which is exactly right way to approach it.

“Transporter” means any of the following:

(a) A person who is engaged in this state in the business of
transporting and delivering motor vehicles, trailers, semitrailers
or recreational vehicles in tow on their own wheels or under their
own power from a distributor, a dealer, the manufacturer, or a
branch of the manufacturer to the purchaser, or from any location
to a distributor, a dealer, the manufacturer, or a branch of the
manufacturer, and who is a 3rd party with no ownership interest
in the vehicles.

(b) A person who manufactures or installs on previously
assembled truck chassis special bodies or equipment which when
installed form an integral part of the motor vehicle and which
constitutes a major manufacturing alteration, or who is engaged
in modifying or converting previously assembled or manufactured
complete motor vehicles, but who is not the owner of the
vehicles on which manufacturing operations were performed by
that person, if incidental to manufacturing operations the person
transports motor vehicles in tow on their own wheels or under
their own power between the person’s place of business and
manufacturers, dealers and distributors, or delivers them to purchasers.



that is what they give you.  There is a reason for that. 

There conveniently is no definition for "transport"!


as far as the shoes goes a judge could certainly get that to stick until you appealed your ass off and spent several thousand bucks even if you know how to do it yourself all the way to the supreme court.

that is the problem with law today.  who the hell has the time in their lives to straighten this shit mess out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Never was there a place so fitting for this thread...P&RS!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

'transport'  in those 10 statutes is not being regulated in and of itself, nor are shoes.

Therefore it is not defined in those regulations 

however transport as you can plainly see came into question because the definition as that one person rightfuly asked for was required.