Hawaii - Is your vehicle exempt from having a license because of (8) or (9)?

[boyntonstu]

http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2011/division1/title17/chapter286/286-207/

Video of a guy asking the police this direct question. An honest answer.



2011 Hawaii Code
DIVISION 1. GOVERNMENT
TITLE 17. MOTOR AND OTHER VEHICLES

286. Highway Safety
Sec.286-207 Exemptions, certain vehicles.

Universal Citation: HI Rev Stat Sec. 286-207 (2011 through Reg Sess)

Sec.286-207 Exemptions, certain vehicles. This part shall not apply to the following vehicles, if such vehicles are in compliance with safety ordinances and rules of the county in which they operate and other applicable state safety laws and rules:

(1) The type of passenger carrying vehicle known as a "sampan bus" within a radius of twenty miles from the city of Hilo, Hawaii;

(2) Station wagons for the carriage of property;

(3) Trucks, truck-trailers, trailers, or other nonpassenger carrying equipment having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except vehicles used in transporting material found by the United States Secretary of Transportation to be hazardous under 49 U.S.C. section 5103 and transported in a quantity requiring placarding under 49 C.F.R., Subtitle B, Chapter I, Subchapter C;

(4) Taxicabs as described in section 271-5(3)(B);

(5) Passenger carrying vehicles with a seating capacity of nine or less used for the transportation of employees to and from the jobsite;

(6) Passenger carrying vehicles used by employees solely for their own transportation to, from, and during work;

(7) Passenger carrying vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or less used in car or van pools for the movement of passengers to and from work;

(8) A passenger carrying vehicle used for the transportation, without compensation, of persons for private, recreational, or entertainment purposes;

(9) A passenger carrying vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less used solely for the transportation, without compensation, of the vehicle owner, the vehicle owner's family or guests;

(10) A passenger carrying vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less used for the transportation, without compensation, of persons for the furtherance of their physical or mental rehabilitation or for social welfare activities. [L Sp 1977 1st, c 20, pt of Sec.1; am L 1979, c 119, Sec.3; gen ch 1985; am L 2010, c 14, Sec.1]

Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Hawaii may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.

Notice too, the use of the words "A passenger carrying vehicle" instead of A passenger transporting vehicle".

When "Transportation" is used (10), they add: for the transportation, "without compensation".


I find this Hawaii Statute easy to understand and rather amazing!

 

[boyntonstu]

Notice that in this video at 0:45 The California Fruit and plant inspector asks the private vehicle person, "Any kind of any plants or produce coming in..."

Sometimes they say "Are you carrying any kind of plants or produce?

She didn't ask "Are you Transporting any plants or produce".

If she had asked a private person the question with the word "Transporting", she would be ignorant of the law. If they had a legal leg to stand on, they would not have been let them go on their way.

The "Transporting" question is reserved for commercial truck carriers.



Stop this video at 6:54 and read.

P.S. In Part 3 they let them go without a search.

Perhaps we can all learn a few lessons from the Statutes and from real life experiences.

One lesson for sure, some people who are supposed to follow the law don't know it, don't understand it, and lie about it.

He said that they searched all mobile homes, as the unsearched mobile home rolled by. Liar!

 

[troyg]

Thanks for the clarification. I think I just came up with the answer to all your questions here and other fourms: 1) You already know what you consider the only answer 2) No one could possibly have any input that would match your theories in regards to intelligence SOLUTION: Find the answers yourself, as only your mind can grasp the everything properly, most others don't really care, and since their minds can't grasp there's no use in telling them the horrific error of their ways. There is every answer to all the questions you'll ever have.

 

[AndyCap]

Clarification Please

http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2011/division1/title17/chapter286/286-207/

Video of a guy asking the police this direct question. An honest answer.

boyntonstu, I got here via your post on the same topic over at marcstevens.net forum. I posted the below comments (there's 2) to the video on YouTube. The reason for duplicating them here is two fold.

1) So that you'll hopefully see them because it appears that someone at YouTube or the uploader of the video has censored my two comments. (I'm conducting research to hopefully learn why certain of my comments on YouTube are censored or blocked while other of my comments are not. The censored/blocked comments are visible only when I'm logged into YouTube. As soon as I log out and return to the video the comments have disappeared. I think you'll understand why the second comment would be censored/blocked by YouTube. But the first comment seems innocuous -- not harmful or offensive.)

2) I would like your response to the first comment to see what you think may have happened.

First comment:

The guy on the other end of the phone seemed to be thinking you were asking about a taxi license or license to do business, not a Driver's License. Just talking about license without specifying the type of license is too ambiguous. Unnecessary ambiguity. The video cuts the call before the guy answers your question: "How can you write tickets for that?" Or clarify what he thought you meant effort to clarify/remove the ambiguity.

Contd in reply...

Second comment:

When the government attacks it's accusing the person it's attacking with having violated a specific code(s).

The government's argument is that if you are physically located within the United States or the State Of ________ (Ohio, Florida, Utah, etc) then constitution and code/laws apply to you.

Question: What factual evidence do you, Mr. Prosecutor, have to support your claim/argument that the constitution and code are applicable to me and thus have jurisdiction over me?

That question has been put to hundreds of prosecutors and government officials and none of them have been able to put forth factual evidence that the constitution and code apply.

The answers don't matter when the wrong questions are being asked.

If government was by consent taxes wouldn't be compulsory. Pay the tax or go to jail is not consent. It's extortion -- stealing that's not much different than a common criminal saying, "your money or your life".

Asked of politicians, bureaucrats and other people that call themselves government: If I did business as you do and forced people to give me money, would you consider me a criminal?

There's no need to verbally answer that question.

With regards to consent, a person need look no further into the government's codes, rules and procedures than the Use Of Force Continuum (google it). It's a five-step (sometimes six-step) procedure that law enforcers (cops etc.) are supposed to follow in order to get your obedience/compliance. Step #1: police presence, ,,, Step #5: Use of lethal force.

That's comply or die! And there are plenty of YouTube videos that demonstrate it.

No sane person would consent to a comply-or-die government.

--&e

P.S. If you have an electric bicycle (e-bike) you may want to bookmark endless-sphere.com/forums/ There tons of ebike discussion, lots of help building ebikes and a great Wiki.

 

[boyntonstu]

boyntonstu, I got here via your post on the same topic over at marcstevens.net forum. I posted the below comments (there's 2) to the video on YouTube. The reason for duplicating them here is two fold.

1) So that you'll hopefully see them because it appears that someone at YouTube or the uploader of the video has censored my two comments. (I'm conducting research to hopefully learn why certain of my comments on YouTube are censored or blocked while other of my comments are not. The censored/blocked comments are visible only when I'm logged into YouTube. As soon as I log out and return to the video the comments have disappeared. I think you'll understand why the second comment would be censored/blocked by YouTube. But the first comment seems innocuous -- not harmful or offensive.)

2) I would like your response to the first comment to see what you think may have happened.

First comment:

Second comment:

--&e

P.S. If you have an electric bicycle (e-bike) you may want to bookmark endless-sphere.com/forums/ There tons of ebike discussion, lots of help building ebikes and a great Wiki.

Thanks for joining this forum. I have built 2 engine-ized bikes and I am also interested in an electric build. As you probably know, an electric bike is all about LiPo's. Reclaiming cells from laptops and Dewalts is not to be taken lightly. One has to become quit skilled and have all the equipment to do it right. Gas is so much simpler.

As to the Hawaii conversation: I believe that he was asked if it was a taxi and his reply was no, just a regular car.

I am impressed that Marc Stevens helped a guy with the IRS on the issue of jurisdiction. It took six years and a vast amount of work. An impressive success, but most folks are not willing to fight.

I showed the Hawaii statute because it clearly shows the delineation between commerce and non-commerce. All states know that there is a delineation, but they write their Codes in secret coding to hide the truth.

Florida hides behind "Transport". When you travel on a engine-ized Harley on personal business, are you transporting yourself?

What you wrote is true:

The government's argument is that if you are physically located within the United States or the State Of ________ (Ohio, Florida, Utah, etc) then constitution and code/laws apply to you.

Question: What factual evidence do you, Mr. Prosecutor, have to support your claim/argument that the constitution and code are applicable to me and thus have jurisdiction over me?

I agree with this line of reasoning in all traffic matters.

However, I don't think that an accused murderer would get very far with the question.

In a Florida Traffic Court, I wish someone would ask "What does transport mean?"

It would be fun at trial to see a jury ponder the question.

I would ask the prospective jurors in Voir dire if they were transported to the Courthouse and by what?

It is a shame that Youtube censured your comments.

Again, welcome aboard.