[baubino]

> It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle.

You do have a right to ownership though if it’s paid in full and you have the title. If I fully own my vehicle but someone else can control or disable it remotely then they are tampering with my personal property.

[HaZeust]

"Mechanics lien" are a thing, and the government has plenty of machinations to avoid someone from registering their car or updating a registration, which does have case law for being an action prior to taking someone's vehicle as an asset seizure. Civil asset forfeiture also has extensive case law for being used with vehicles.

When it comes to brass text and if the chips are down, your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Whether it should be or not, and regardless of how much an individual's mobility and freedom is reliant on them owning a car in modern America, it's still a de-facto "privilege" rather than a "right".

[bigbadfeline]

> your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you and SoftTalker appear to be writing under the influence of some questionable assumptions.

The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the actions themselves are right or justified.

The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.

[ndjeosibfb]

brass text?

[HaZeust]

brass tacks*. That's what I get for generating half of my comment with speech to text.