Sure, let's look at Driver's License, as you mentioned it and I have some background with that in particular.
Just because a statute alludes to something as being a "violation" doesn't mean the state can punish someone over it.
Driver's license is a good example, as I have successfully tested this in court. Twice.
There are only punishment clauses for those who have applied for and hold a Driver license.
Driving on expired license has a punishment clause
Driving on revoked license has a punishment clause
Driving on suspended license has a punishment clause
There's no punishment clause for a non-commercial person for "Driving without a license*,"
mostly because such a statute would impair a person's freedom, which is a reserved right in the US.
The definition for "license" for the Driver's License section of the state code supports this:
6) “License” means an authorization to operate a motor vehicle that is issued under or granted by the laws of this state. The term includes:
(A) a driver’s license;
(B) the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle regardless of whether the person holds a driver’s license; and
(C) a nonresident’s operating privilege.
*Caveat: Commercial drivers must hold a driver's license. That is is required and has a punishment clause, because the state may regulate commerce.
Most people do not have a working understanding of common law (the basis of law in the US) and are taken advantage of in inferior (kangaroo) courts, such as Justice of the Peace and City courts. Mostly because they do not know how to exercise their right to a trial in a superior court of record where the presumption of jurisdiction can be successfully challenged.
How in the wide world of sports does this in any way relate to the Investment Thread?
Tesla and FSD are likely subject to being required to stop at stop signs because FSD is acting in commerce.
People are paying for a service. States can regulate commerce. FSD is likely treated as a commercial driver, under the law.
Non-commercial drivers who slow-roll should not be held to this requirement as jurisdiction is not applicable to them, as long as there is no actual injured party** bringing charges. Modeling the behavior of non-commercial drivers may leave some situations where what most people do would be prohibited by law for a commercial driver to do. School busses and tanker trucks having mandatory stop for all railroad crossing might be a good example.
**the "state" routinely masquerades as the injured party for non-commercial traffic violations.
If an objection is not raised in arraignment for a "court of record" over this, the rules of court allow the cause to proceed on the presumption that both sides are in agreement about jurisdiction being applicable. In my experience, the prosecution will try to steamroll though arraignment as if it doesn't exist. I had to speak up and have an affidavit in the record for my claims.
Here's the rub, the state is a "body politic" and is not a "legal person" in court (human, or a corporation, association, etc. registered with the state).
I have successfully had cases dismissed by applying this strategy in arraignment for courts of record. It was a pain to take time for court in order to prove this, and it was a matter of principle for me, as I started out trying to prove someone else wrong. In the end the court supported how that person had been right, and I now know with demonstrable certainty that traffic laws being enforced on non-commercial drivers, with no injured party, are a complete sham.