You are quite correct with respect to the operation of the vehicle. Operation of the vehicle is a privilege. However, there is a legal distinction in Connecticut between ownership of the vehicle and operation of the vehicle. The owner cannot be deprived of his ownership so long as the value of the vehicle is $1,500 or less. If he were a judgment debtor, and his car was seized in a property execution, the marshal would attempt to sell the car. If the marshal can not get more than $1,500 he has to return the car to the owner. If the marshal sells it for more than $1,500 he has to give $1,500 cash back to the owner. The Court's recognition of the necessity of an auto for transportation presupposes that the owner will operate the vehicle in a responsible manner.

I had a fun case a few years ago in which I sued a car dealership. The judgment debtor refused to pay the judgment. So I issued a property execution, and gave it to a really mean tempered female marshal. By the time the execution was issued legal  post judgment interest had accrued of an additional 10% per annum, and the marshal added her fee of 10% to it. She walked into the dealership in the morning, and served them with the execution. She told them she would be back at the end of the day for a check. If she did not get her check, she was going to start impounding cars for sale and satisfaction of the judgment. Her check was waiting for her at the end of the day.

The only occasion I am aware of in which the ownership may be negated is a situation in which the auto was used as part of a criminal enterprise, and the auto was confiscated..

However, your point is well taken. While the ownership of a motor vehicle is regarded as a necessity, its operation is subject to the motor vehicle code. The owner's ability to operate the vehicle may be interrupted temporarily or in some cases permanently by a revocation of his license, but this does not impair his ownership right.