In Texas, no registration is carried EXCEPT for commercial vehicles.
Sound of soapbox being deployed.
(oh no, not again ...)
(Caution: those who most often prefer to hold a belief rather than test against fact may do well to skip this.
Rational, open-minded folks who aren't so easily offended, read on.
)
The above is true and correct, as I recall, the chapter for registration is defined as
"applying to vehicles owned by the state and political subdivisions of the state." So, which are you? The state, or, a political subdivision thereof?
These "subdivisions" include the like of; corporations registered with the state, commercial operators licensed by the state, and, anyone who
volunteers into the program to receive the benefits from registration (theft prevention, etc.). Thus declaring themselves as a political subdivision. Which is allowed, even if in actuality they aren't "required" to do so.
Learning this left me scratching my head trying to understand how we came to believe that non commercial vehicles are required to be registered when nothing in this defining portion of the chapter indicates this would be the case.
As I understand it, the state is limited to regulating commercial activity in order to protect the citizenry. These regulations are written to allow citizens to partake in the "benefit" of registration, but cannot "require" that they do. For instance, a statute can require that a commercial dealership must "offer" to register the vehicle for a private citizen, but the letter of the law comes short of requiring that they "must" actually do so. Those who are required to be registered and are purchasing from the dealer may be required to let the dealer file paperwork at time of purchase.
This, of course, opens another can of worms, raising the usual arguments about how everyone NEEDS to be regulated or "I" don't feel safe. blah blah blah
Bottom line is that everyone is personally responsible for their stuff and liable for damage caused by them or their stuff. The insurance and regulations associated with registration apply to; those actually required to be registered, and, those "self-declared political subdivisions" of the state that aren't actually required to do so.
Not that this is a bad thing. Merely pointing out that this is how the statutes are written.
They are written this way because to write it otherwise would fail the constitutional test, and violate the rights reserved by the constitution for the people. This would nullify any such law on its face for not meeting the constitutional test. The legislators must write the laws to conform to the constitution's limits placed upon state and federal government regarding the reserved rights of the people. This leads to a lot of misleading phrases that can be easily taken any of several ways, depending upon who it is being applied to.
The fact that people, generally, prefer to be ruled to a greater or lesser degree, over taking responsibility thru self-rule as the founders envisioned, is what leads to creating what appears to be a contradictory, voluntary system like this to account for this discrepancy in human nature. This "herd" mentality is lizard-brain stuff, and difficult to overcome through rational thought, though the founders did their best to create a system that allows it, they couldn't, through legislation, make people continue to learn and think this way for themselves.
Just because the law must be written making things like non-commercial driver license, non-commercial registration, etc. available on a voluntary basis is in no way indicating that it would be a good idea to abandon the system as it now operates.
Clearly, the people prefer it this way. It makes them feel all warm and fuzzy and safe. Even when, by undermining the tenet of accepting personal responsibility and holding respect for others person and property, such a system actually makes things less safe while giving the illusion otherwise.
Still, it is good that the right to self-govern is preserved in the statutes, even though for one to choose to actually do so would be a ridiculous swim against the current of popular belief held by those who don't fully grasp the foundation upon which the statutes are crafted.
I'm trying my best to write this in a way that doesn't inflame others due to their beliefs, all while illustrating how what the law actually says is different than what most people believe.
This is an issue of logic, rather than of emotion. It is neither a call to anarchy, nor is it "bashing the system." It is merely explaining an otherwise confusing aspect of the system in use in regard to the words defining the law in statutes.
Between you, me and the gatepost, it does get old when folks read what I write about these things and immediately presume this is some kind of call to arms.
It isn't.
It is just the facts, ma'am.
The world would be a better place if more folks understood how believing something voluntary is mandatory undermines building respect, encouraging personal responsibility and is counter to promoting what used to be known as "The American Way."
(sound of soapbox being put away)
This form as it is used is fine. It provides a benefit to compensate for people who have been trained over generations to abandon taking personal responsibility, preferring the comfort of their lives being managed by a benevolent third-party.
Responsible people are right to take issue with a benevolent third party stepping in to manage their affairs. (often not realizing how they granted tacit permission to do so by volunteering to become a political subdivision)
Some are more accepting about being managed, perhaps because they won't do it for themselves, or just feel it is better, easier, makes the world safer, etc.
It is a conundrum.