New Law Forced 8 Drivers To Give Up Blood During DUI Stops

[Libertytree]

http://tnreport.com/blog/2012/07/10/new-law-forced-8-drivers-to-give-up-blood-during-dui-stops-over-holiday-weekend/

NASHVILLE — The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security announced the results from the state’s first-ever “No Refusal” DUI enforcement effort which took place in five counties over the July Fourth holiday period. The campaign was a coordinated effort by the Tennessee Highway Patrol, the Governor’s Highway Safety Office (GHSO), local district attorneys, and various local and state law enforcement agencies.
The “No Refusal” enforcement period started at 6 p.m., Tuesday, July 3, and ran through midnight, Sunday, July 8. This special enforcement was effective in selected counties where impaired driving and fatal crashes have increased this year, specifically, Anderson, Bradley, Davidson, Maury and Warren Counties. State and local officials conducted sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols in those counties as well as in other parts of the state.
The “No Refusal” law, enacted this year by the General Assembly, allows law enforcement officials to seek search warrants for blood samples in cases involving suspected impaired drivers. Previously, a suspected impaired driver could refuse a blood alcohol content test and face charges of violating the implied consent law. This new law enables law enforcement to legally obtain blood samples by working with prosecutors and judges throughout the state during the warrant acquisition process.

[Buddha]

I have a big thing about having my blood drawn, I do NOT like it. Some guy taking my life-force from me against my will, yeah right, it would be easier for them to just put a bullet in me if they want blood.

Not to mention the general tyranny of it all.

[Dogman]

Texas has been doing the same thing now for a year or two now. They will take the suspect to the nearest hospital/clinic and do a blood draw. No opt out at all.

[iOWNme]

Another reason to carry EVERYWHERE you go.

Now when you get pulled over, you have no idea if they are going to try and FORCIBLY take your blood, rob you at gunpoint, or even kidnapp you for torture under the NDAA. So why would you even chance letting them get you? Seriously, there is a chance you will NEVER see your family again, let alone a court room to defend yourself. If Due Process is gone, then so is the Cops protection against flying bullets.

And dont give me the bullshit about 'Oh that wouldnt happen'....Because it is directly from SATANS (Government) mouth.

Its getting to the point where you might as well not even pull over, just start shooting.

[gunDriller]

i do not remember voting for this.

[General of Darkness]

Building a data base of information on everyone.

[Serpo]

This is very fitting for a government showing how close it is to DRACULA and his blood sucking tendencies.

[Libertytree]

All this shit saddens me and infuriates me beyond description, DHS "Dept of Homeland Sociopaths" is out of fucking control! They are doing nothing short of waging war against us and 99.9% of people just don't see it. What a fucked up country!

Yes Sui Juris, I think you're 1000% spot on.

[chad]

what. the. fuck.

[collector]

Don't drink when you're out - starve the beast. If you're at the point where the cops have you outside your car for a sobriety check - your gun will be useless at that point as they would have already disarmed you.
Even if you were successful in dying in a hail of gunfire over a dui check - the MSM would report "Drunk kills cops who were trying to keep America safe". New procedures, laws, fines, etc would follow.

Again, don't drink when you're out, don't admit to having 1 drink and don't give them reason to detain - record everything...a lot better than dying over this crap

[midnight rambler]

Of course those cocksucking LEO policy-men feel all warm and fuzzy about doing 'the lawd's work'. lol

[slowbell]

Don't drink when you're out - starve the beast. If you're at the point where the cops have you outside your car for a sobriety check - your gun will be useless at that point as they would have already disarmed you.
Even if you were successful in dying in a hail of gunfire over a dui check - the MSM would report "Drunk kills cops who were trying to keep America safe". New procedures, laws, fines, etc would follow.

Again, don't drink when you're out, don't admit to having 1 drink and don't give them reason to detain - record everything...a lot better than dying over this crap

This. ^

This law is nothing new. If you refuse a breathalyzer test, or the walk the line test, the cop is going to take you in for a blood alcohol test. That requires, taking a blood sample. It's your choice, take the breath test, or take the blood test. The blood test will buy you some time however, the time to sober up between getting taking in for the test. The breath test is immediate, on the spot. I'd recommend if you are "borderline" and not sure of your BAC (ie, a couple of beers or so), request the blood test.

Don't drink and drive. Drink at home with folks you trust. I am a firm believer that 90% of accidental deaths on our roadways could be prevented if folks didn't get behind the wheel after drinking.

[midnight rambler]

Understand this: if one does not have a 'DRIVER LICENSE' (i.e. not suspended, revoked, etc.) then one is not obligated to do JACKSHIT at the request of any (Communist/fascist) policy-man (with respect to the 'traffic' statutes) as one is not in a contract with the state.

[Hatha Sunahara]

i do not remember voting for this.

I don't know of anybody who keeps track of what their elected representatives in the government are doing. In fact, I don't know many people who even know the names of their elected officials. Everybody I know is too busy making a living to pay attention to what the government is doing. We all believe that we can trust to government to look out for our interests. And then it hits us. One of our large interests is to remain free.

I don't think voting matters any more. We're going to have to find different ways to vote.


Hatha

[midnight rambler]

We're going to have to find different ways to vote.

Withholding one's consent is a means of 'voting'. Not participating in some group's religious activities is another way of 'voting'.

[mick silver]

time is short before they open the fema camps ............

[slowbell]

Understand this: if one does not have a 'DRIVER LICENSE' (i.e. not suspended, revoked, etc.) then one is not obligated to do JACKSHIT at the request of any (Communist/fascist) policy-man (with respect to the 'traffic' statutes) as one is not in a contract with the state.

As long as you don't DRIVE, perhaps. If you get behind the wheel, you actually do need a driver license. If you do not have one, you will be held in detention until your identity is proven....or, the city allows you to write a simple citation, for no license, like the city I know. This is where illegal immigrants get a free pass. They don't have a license, what do you do with them? Write a ticket. They will never pay the ticket.

[midnight rambler]

If you get behind the wheel, you actually do need a driver license.

Utter bullshit. Naturally a collectivist would assert such nonsense.

A DRIVER LICENSE is ONLY required of those operating a business on public property, e.g. taxi driver, chauffeur, bus driver, wrecker driver, OTR truck drivers, moving company driver, UPS driver, etc. - i.e. one who is 'for hire' in the BUSINESS of TRANSPORTATION where they are CARRYING 'goods' or 'passengers' (the term is NOT what you've been lead to believe, look it up for yourself) on public property for compensation. For those who *think* they know (brainwashed? submissive to 'authority' figures?) what they're talking about with regards to this need to look up the definition for and appreciate the term 'traffic'. lol Motorists who are not engaged in commerce on the streets, roads and highways absolutely have no *need* of a DRIVER LICENSE. Anyone who says otherwise is either a moron or a collectivist swine, or both - imo.

ETA: that's what's wrong with this country, too many non-thinking, non-questioning, kowtowing to 'authority' figures, mindless automaton collectivist morons who do exactly what they're told by their 'superiors' while totally disregarding the Law of Nature (God's law) aka 'the perfect law of liberty' (James 1:25).

[slowbell]

lol Motorists who are not engaged in commerce on the streets, roads and highways absolutely have no *need* of a DRIVER LICENSE. Anyone who says otherwise is either a moron or a collectivist swine, or both - imo.

Damnit. I didn't write the rules. To get behind the wheel of an 'automobile' on public roads, you DO need to have a driver's license.

Try it. Go drive like an asshole on the roads, get pulled over....what's the cop going to ask for? You guessed it...a driver's license. It doesn't take a moron to figure that out. If you don't have one, see what happens. Try it, let us know how that works for you.

[midnight rambler]

I haven't had the BENEFIT of a DRIVER LICENSE or REGISTRATION in over 10 years. I personally know someone who hasn't 'enjoyed' the BENEFIT of a DRIVER LICENSE or REGISTRATION for over 25 years. An imbecile TEXAS DPS trooper pulled him over the other day and my friend heard the dispatcher tell the DPS Trooper "DO NOT ARREST" because he's established his position.

Again I assert that anyone who insists that a DRIVER LICENSE is required for those NOT engaged in commerce is a just another fucking collectivist moron since they OBVIOUSLY don't know what they don't know - another anosognosic - imo. lol

[slowbell]

I have a hard time believing that, no offense, Midnight. At least all those illegal immigrants driving around, without licenses, that we let go...they should fall under that.

Ah, fuck it. Drive without a license. If you harm others on the roadway you better settle it. You need to be accountable for your actions. That's all that I think is important.

[madfranks]

Understand this: if one does not have a 'DRIVER LICENSE' (i.e. not suspended, revoked, etc.) then one is not obligated to do JACKSHIT at the request of any (Communist/fascist) policy-man (with respect to the 'traffic' statutes) as one is not in a contract with the state.

In theory I agree with you, but if a cop pulls over a drunk man who doesn't have a license, you better believe that no talk of contractual obligations with the state, withholding consent, etc., will stop that thug cop from either taking your ass to jail or kill you trying.

[millwright]

Wait a minute, I thought Ron Pauls revolution was going to save us from all of this . Oh shit I forgot, Ron Paul never intended to foster a revolution.

This country is finished. Think in terms of decades before this shitstorm resolves itself, and I mean it gosh darnit.

Oh yeah and one more thing. Stay the f*ck out of TN, TX and definatley Indiana ,and while your at it STOP GOING TO BARS - STOP SOCIALIZING WITH IDIOTS and NEVER EVER EVER GO TO THE DARK SIDE OF TOWN !

Just Sayin :)

[Blink]

Damnit. I didn't write the rules. To get behind the wheel of an 'automobile' on public roads, you DO need to have a driver's license.

Try it. Go drive like an asshole on the roads, get pulled over....what's the cop going to ask for? You guessed it...a driver's license. It doesn't take a moron to figure that out. If you don't have one, see what happens. Try it, let us know how that works for you.

Its all about the definitions...........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jILkxbK_lzk&feature=fvwrel


Still you would buy some sort of private insurance just in case something happens, but, you wouldn't have to pussyfoot with the cops anymore. Granted they would make it their mission to constantly f*ck you over every chance they got to teach any others a lesson. We lose either way.

[Skirnir_]

It is on account of nonsense like this that I decided to stop driving.

[palani]

Drive without a license. If you harm others on the roadway you better settle it.

Suppose you needed a license to drive your sailboat. Vessels are covered by maritime law. Drivers licenses are maritime law coming ashore. How long do you suppose before the Coast Guard see the need to justify their budget by demanding a fee and an examination from all those sailboat drivers they regulate?

[iOWNme]

Utter bullshit. Naturally a collectivist would assert such nonsense.

A DRIVER LICENSE is ONLY required of those operating a business on public property, e.g. taxi driver, chauffeur, bus driver, wrecker driver, OTR truck drivers, moving company driver, UPS driver, etc. - i.e. one who is 'for hire' in the BUSINESS of TRANSPORTATION where they are CARRYING 'goods' or 'passengers' (the term is NOT what you've been lead to believe, look it up for yourself) on public property for compensation. For those who *think* they know (brainwashed? submissive to 'authority' figures?) what they're talking about with regards to this need to look up the definition for and appreciate the term 'traffic'. lol Motorists who are not engaged in commerce on the streets, roads and highways absolutely have no *need* of a DRIVER LICENSE. Anyone who says otherwise is either a moron or a collectivist swine, or both - imo.

ETA: that's what's wrong with this country, too many non-thinking, non-questioning, kowtowing to 'authority' figures, mindless automaton collectivist morons who do exactly what they're told by their 'superiors' while totally disregarding the Law of Nature (God's law) aka 'the perfect law of liberty' (James 1:25).

The reason the Cop asks for a drivers license is because he sees the STATE issued plates. THIS is proof you have admitted to engaging in commerce.

[palani]

The reason the Cop asks for a drivers license is because he sees the STATE issued plates. THIS is proof you have admitted to engaging in commerce.

The license plate is proof that the vehicle is state owned. The equitable owner might be you but then you can be separated from your equitable right to the use of the vehicle very easily.

[chad]

i never knew there were so many lawyers here.

[sirgonzo420]

i never knew there were so many lawyers here.

low blow, chad, low blow.

I do, however, prefer the term "lawyer" to "attorney", but not by a huge margin.

[chad]

low blow, chad, low blow.

I do, however, prefer the term "lawyer" to "attorney", but not by a huge margin.

to be fair, i guess not everyone here is a lawyer. the other half are doctors.

[sirgonzo420]

to be fair, i guess not everyone here is a lawyer. the other half are doctors.

I'm no mamboni (i.e. not medical...) but I've got a doctorate too.


;D