Hacker News Reader

Comment by lp0_on_fire | Hacker News Reader

I find this a very odd and non compelling argument

Just now many people have a) private land and b) private land in sufficient quantity and state that you can actually drive a car on it?

View on HN

It’s pretty common to have unlicensed off road vehicles, especially in the mountain west. Farmers and ranchers often have at least one of these. There’s plenty of recreational users as well.

Compare the numbers of farmers and ranchers to the rest of the population.

How many recreational users have private land in sufficient quantities?

That doesn’t mean that this isn’t true in a technical sense. It’s correct that it isn’t feasible for the majority of the population.

You’ll sometimes also see small communities with private roads that allow unlicensed vehicles, such as retirement communities, but they often have their own standards for what is allowed.

What’s your point? It’s true.

It’s true in the same way that it’s technically true anyone* can buy a football team.

* anyone with a few hundred million in the bank.

It seems like a moot point --

If you are driving off-road, or completely on private property, you're not really driving the vehicle to "go somewhere" or commute or transport people/goods.

It isn't really feasible to use a vehicle for actual transportation without using public roads, at least in these United States.

So what possible cause or reason would any law enforcement have, for going into a vehicle like that and searching it? I mean, compared to someone driving on a public road and "going somewhere" while "carrying stuff" in there? Nearly none, right?

Farmers who own their farm is the traditional group that would qualify. That population is much smaller than it used to be to my understanding though.

I do! I call it my “driveway.”

Related: 20 days until the Daytona 500!

basically every farmer.

So is the argument that only farmers should be able to have a vehicle?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com