“Right-To-Travel” NH Native Sparks Anti-FSP Vitriol

July 8, 2010 by Brad
Filed under: News, Personal Freedom, Police, Response

The Union Leader is running an article about an individual who was arrested by the Rockingham County Sheriffs Department for driving without state permission:

“A Nottingham man was ordered held without bail after he argued that the county sheriff’s department had no constitutional right to arrest him for driving from the courthouse without a license.”

Drive, without state permission, eventually what happens?

“That prompted prosecutors yesterday to have Porter’s bail revoked until his new trial on Sept. 27 for the Exeter charges.”

Caging, like an animal.

This man is a New Hampshire native, mind you. His license issues began back in 1999… before the Free State Project began. These comments in the Union Leader, to me, show just how apathetic people are towards the ever increasing police state in which we live:

Prime candidate for permanent residency in the the psycho ward. People like this don’t belong out in society without one-on-one close supervision.
- Brian, Farmington

Sounds like one of those Free Staters to me.
Nut jobs, all of them!
- John, Manchester

People who believe in reducing the infringement of government into the liberty of individuals who are not harming someone surely makes them “nut jobs.” I refer you John and Brian to the following Wikipedia article: Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union.

I’ll agree that the “free staters” can appear to be “out there” on the fringe sometimes, but we need people like them to protect us from the Governments increasing encroachment on our freedoms.

P.S the “free staters” are some of the staunchest defenders of your constitutional rights, especially the 2nd amendment in NH.

I have found them to be very strict constitutionalists and Libertarian in their thinking, and I don’t have a problem with that, why should you.
- neggy, hudson

Without the Free State Project here in New Hampshire… it would only be a matter of time before New Hampshire descends into another Massachusetts. As a New Hampshire native, I feel blessed that the Free State Project is here.

Another Freestater on the way to the looney bin. The Freestaters are a bunch of crazies who want to drag us back to the stone age. They are all a bunch of anti society radicals. No laws, no taxes. The roads will fall apart and people will starve but the Freestaters will be able to grow pot. Thats what they want. Its time for them to go away.
- Mel, Manchester

Wrong, Mel. This fellow is a New Hampshire native. He’s not on his way to the “looney bin” either. He is on his way to a cage… for doing something that caused no harm to anyone else.

Anyone can believe anything they want? Freestaters or not… Okay, then believe this: if you don’t recognize the authority of the police, or the State then why do they still pay their taxes? If they won’t get a license, get Off the Road!! It’s paid for by the state, town, etc with tax-payer money, guided by elected officials… Want to be FREE, then WALK!!!! Ride a bike! Get a life while you are at it and find better things to protest about.
- Scott, Portsmouth

People still pay taxes (not “theirs”) because of the threat of violence if they don’t.

neggy, hudson, the Free Stater nutballs were the reason for the ban on weapons in the State House, because they made a big show of going in covered with guns like children.

They need to be encourage to go home. Loudly.

- Dave Sims, Derry

This is their home… and not a single incident of violence or anyone being harmed at the state house ever occurred. All that happened is people exercised their rights as sovereigns to carry firearms. The symbolism of carrying a firearm is more important than actually carrying a firearm for protection, in my opinion.

Oh free staters… when will you learn. Defenders of our rights? I must have missed the constitutional right to be willfully ignorant and endlessly self indulgent.

These people are the personification of how civic responsibility has taken a backseat to mulish entitlement. There is no free lunch, someone has to pay for the police, the roads, etc. Free staters benefit from the trappings of society for their entire lives but believe that they are above the laws that keep that very same society functioning.

I’d love to hear the free staters and sovereign citizens explain what they think the constitution says to a law professor. Would the professor laugh or cry?
- James, Manchester

Hmm… President Obama is a “constitutional law professor” who recently authorized the extra-judicial killing of American citizens so long as a bureaucrat labels them a “terrorist.” With this type of thought being the mainstream opinion of constitutional law professors, I’m not so sure what justification a constitutional law professor can come up with for anything really means anything. I’m sure the founding fathers would have approved of a king president having the ability to order an American citizen be whacked, simply because he said so.

How did he escape from Keene?
- Happy in, Portsmouth

Comments

9 Comments on “Right-To-Travel” NH Native Sparks Anti-FSP Vitriol

Johnny Juárez on Thu, 8th Jul 2010 1:57 pm

I think right to travel versus the DMV license and registration scam is pretty much a lost cause. I’d like to see right to travel lawsuits against the TSA, however. The TSA’s checkpoints are historically new enough that there might be some hope there. But any kind of right to drive prevailing over DMV licensing and taxes won’t ever happen, unless the FSP succeeds in 10-20 years.

bil on Thu, 8th Jul 2010 3:53 pm

The TSA checkpoints and security at airports serve a very useful purpose.It is to indoctrinate the average person into believing that at any given moment,you can be stopped,papers demanded,searched,and detained.It is conducted in a public manner to show others what can happen if they don’t ‘behave’.An example must be made.Even when detained at the airport,you are usually held for long enough that the crowd that saw will have time to ‘move along’.Thereby they are never really sure of your fate.”I wonder what that guy did? Do you think they took him away?’.Example made.Next time make sure you use the right size plastic bag or your toothpaste isn’t in the larger size.The average person is easily intimidated by these methods,and will learn to go along.Don’t want to attract attention.
Then extend this policy to train stations-they tried it in NYC.After all,you don’t want terrorists hijacking a train and flying it into a government building! The fact that it hasn’t happened is further proof this policy works,we just need more money.Meanwhile,they are training a cadre of mindless thugs that will obey any order,just doing their duty to protect the country.Why are there so many of them-real cops refer to TSA as Thousands Standing Around.But should a large number be needed,they are on call.Next step is the immigration roadblocks,temporary at first.Last year they wanted to make the one in Vermont permanent.Papers,please!Soon we will carry our important documents with us,just in case.License,passport,US resident card,SS number(not tattooed yet). Also the travel permit,so the enemy will have a hard time moving around undetected.None of this is from any sceince fiction book or old futuristic movie,these are all the tried and true methods of the totalitarian regimes.Both Germany and the USSR used these to great effect.The Germans had refined it to a science,our government has learned from the past.Will we?? Qiuck quiz-in what situation in the US are you guilty until proven innocent?? The airports,of course.Millions of times a day.Bon Voyage! —bil

Zeus on Thu, 8th Jul 2010 6:43 pm

When they respond with their “Burn the Witch!” vitriol, hand them a mirror. Let them see their own bloodlust, hatred and ignorance.

I’m of the opinion there are two kinds of FSP-haters:

1. The ones that really have absolutely no clue what our shared philosophical beliefs are.
2. The ones that do and twist it anyways because they’re evil sick bastards.

Both are dangerous fanatical, bigoted lunatics.

Gabe on Fri, 9th Jul 2010 1:07 pm

The symbolism of carrying a firearm is more important than actually carrying a firearm for protection, in my opinion.

Can someone explain this part to me? I’m not sure I get it.

The Second Amendment states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn’t read “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms for symbolism…”

Bradley Jardis on Fri, 9th Jul 2010 1:13 pm

Gabe,

This is just my personal opinion.

I think that a person carrying a firearm is far more likely to reach people with the message of asserting their rights than using their firearm to protect themselves.

Does that make sense?

bil on Fri, 9th Jul 2010 1:29 pm

As the bumper sticker says ‘George Washington didn’t use his right to free speach against the British,he shot the bastards’.But the way I took the symbolism thing is-you may not need to carry a gun for protection every day.But you have the right ,and in certain instances,the duty.However,through the years the average citizenry has grown used to the idea of being unarmed,the police/government will protect us.Whereas the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were aware that those forces were the ones that you you may need to be armed against.An armed population is a deterant to tyrany.That is why they want us unarmed.So the symbolism of bearing arms doesn’t mean you expect to be assailed on the street,it is just a reminder to all that you are aware of your rights and will stand up for them.It will get the general population used to the idea again,and will also serve the authorities notice that we understand our rights.In some of the places I have had to work or travel,I use open carry-it prevents trouble.In others,concealed carry,you don’t need to escalate anything,but it is good to have something just in case.In most situations encountered in daily life,I keep it all locked safely away.(sorry for the long answer,it has been a long night) —bil

Gabe on Fri, 9th Jul 2010 3:57 pm

I think that a person carrying a firearm is far more likely to reach people with the message of asserting their rights than using their firearm to protect themselves.

Does that make sense?

I can see how one might think that way, yes.

I believe I have the right to snort coke, should I choose to. That doesn’t mean I’m doing it for the sake of symbolism.

Paul on Fri, 9th Jul 2010 4:55 pm

Yeah, but then snorting coke is damaging, while responsibly open carrying is harmless, or if anything, beneficial.

Peacemaker/aka Markus on Wed, 14th Jul 2010 7:46 pm

Thanks for the article Bradley, great stuff!

It’s interesting how this100% peaceful group of “Free Staters” can make so many people nervous as well as suggest violence to “stop” the “crazies.”

Well if being Honest is Crazy, then call me crazy but I will have no part in santioning our “Masters” with the power to intiate the use of violence against peaceful people doing voluntary things.

PS: And for those who think they are “Free”… do you really think you own your home? (just try not paying your Masters Yearly Bill, i.e.; property taxes) and you’ll see how “free” you are.

Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!