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 @[email protected], 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.
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.
I knew some of the statutes off hand but definitely recognized the UCC right away, Uniform Commercial Code, and dude says “Not engaged in commerce” right at the top. What an absolute stooge.
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 @[email protected], 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.
… Cool. Here’s your ticket. Take it up with the judge.
SCs: ARE YOU THREATENING ME!?
I knew some of the statutes off hand but definitely recognized the UCC right away, Uniform Commercial Code, and dude says “Not engaged in commerce” right at the top. What an absolute stooge.