>This is super wrong. Here's Indiana's statute [0]. Nothing about commercial use only.
The key is in the terminology used. A "motor vehicle" is distinctly different from "personal/private transport" from a legal standpoint. The former describes a form of transport used for commercial purposes. It's also why these commercial licenses and registrations are issued by an organization called the DMV.
Traveling on roads is a right defined in common law, only doing so in a commercial capacity is a privilege that can be regulated using licenses. Hard to believe, I know.
>Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”[0]
>American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”[0]
[0] https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-ne...