Virginia and the Real ID Act

imported post

Mike wrote:

The REAL ID Act is a threat to open carry rights - the draconian federalization of state issue DLs & IDs, and eventual creation of a Tri-National ID Card implicates our rights to buy handguns from dealers to open carry, and to open carry in states which require permits to OC - arguably, a gun carry license is an ID within the meaning of the REAL ID Act and many such licenses will be invalidated by the REAL ID Act over time.

Regardless, the growing ”papers in order” PATRIOT Act mentality sweeping out nation, as evidenced by the recent rude demands by police to gun owners eating food in Virginia (Staunton & Manassas), will only be fortified if REAL actually takes effect.

Next time you are eating food at Tony’s pizza, assuming you choose to comply with an invalid police demand for “ID,” the police response might be, “NO! I MEAN YOUR REAL ID – COUGH IT UP OR WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A RIDE TO THE STATION![/b]”


TAKE ACTION at http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=30
[/b]
Do this for every state in which you live, work, are domiciled, go to school, own property, or have some ties.

Here is the "personal message" I added to my web form mail salvos I fired off today:

"States don't need to be told how to issue IDs, and Americans don't need to be told they have to carry or use IDs within our own country.

Kill the REAL ID Act now!"

Click to expand...

Virginia is working on a plan against the Real ID Act.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?091+sum+HB1587

Real ID Act; Commonwealth's participation. Provides that the Commonwealth will not participate in the compliance of any provision of the federal Real ID Act and of any other federal law, regulation, or policy that would compromise the economic privacy or biometric data of any resident of the Commonwealth.

imported post

Bad link, dude.

imported post

Glock27Bill wrote:

Bad link, dude.

Click to expand...

I didn't provide the link in Mike's quote, just had the post there for reference.

Does the one to the bill work for you?

imported post

Ihre Papiere, bitte.

imported post

Sure, states can decide on how to handle the ID requirements and refuse to go along with the program.

But here is the problem..... The states obtain money from the feds for their participation in certain programs.

The government is serious about this one and that is why so many states are scrambling to get an ID in place that satisfies the government and the residents of the state in regards to privacy.

If the state refuses and sticks to their current ID system.... they are going to loose federal money.

No big deal, right? Tell the feds to keep their cash!!!

But that money is being used to support program and services. So without it.. the state would need to replace it somehow. The only was is to cut programs and raise taxes.

So now you are up against all the people in the state that could care less about your thoughts in a national ID system. They want those services they currently have and they do NOT want to pay higher taxes.

Goodluck making everyone happy.. :lol:

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Sure, states can decide on how to handle the ID requirements and refuse to go along with the program.

But here is the problem..... The states obtain money from the feds for their participation in certain programs.

The government is serious about this one and that is why so many states are scrambling to get an ID in place that satisfies the government and the residents of the state in regards to privacy.

If the state refuses and sticks to their current ID system.... they are going to loose federal money.

No big deal, right? Tell the feds to keep their cash!!!

But that money is being used to support program and services. So without it.. the state would need to replace it somehow. The only was is to cut programs and raise taxes.

So now you are up against all the people in the state that could care less about your thoughts in a national ID system. They want those services they currently have and they do NOT want to pay higher taxes.

Goodluck making everyone happy.. :lol:

Click to expand...

What federal funding is associated with or will be denied if Real ID is adopted.

Part of the issues that states are having is the Feds passed it, but provide no funding.

There is the threat of access to certain places without a Real ID standard state ID, but passports and other ID will still be accepted.

Some facts: http://www.washingtontechnology.com/print/22_14/31156-1.html

http://news.cnet.com/Federal-buildings-become-Real-ID-zones/2009-1028_3-6229133.html

Please provide information on the threat to withhold funds if states do not adopted Real ID.

imported post

possumboy wrote:

What federal funding is associated with or will be denied if Real ID is adopted.

Part of the issues that states are having is the Feds passed it, but provide no funding.

There is the threat of access to certain places without a Real ID standard state ID, but passports and other ID will still be accepted.

Click to expand...

I have not looked that deeply into the matter.

As with most government programs... they are optional to be adopted by the states and the way to get them to go with the program is to throw some financial assistance their way.

A feasible situation would be as follows....

The feds will help pay to implement the program and minimize the cost if you do it now. The state declines but a few years later they see that they need to get on board because the licenses and ID cards for the state residents are no longer valid for xyz.

So now the state wants to get on board but they have to pay the entire cost without any assistance from the feds. So now they need cash to fund the project.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I have not looked that deeply into the matter.

As with most government programs... they are optional to be adopted by the states and the way to get them to go with the program is to throw some financial assistance their way.

A feasible situation would be as follows....

The feds will help pay to implement the program and minimize the cost if you do it now. The state declines but a few years later they see that they need to get on board because the licenses and ID cards for the state residents are no longer valid for xyz.

So now the state wants to get on board but they have to pay the entire cost without any assistance from the feds. So now they need cash to fund the project.

Click to expand...

Look deeper next time before replying. The Feds are not offering to help.

The feasible situation does not exist within the Real ID Act. It would have to be redone.

imported post

possumboy wrote:

Look deeper next time before replying. The Feds are not offering to help.

The feasible situation does not exist within the Real ID Act. It would have to be redone.

Click to expand...

YES SIR!! I was unaware I was taking orders from you and not entitled to join inon anydiscussion.

We are all entitled to give our opinion and ideas. You are in no position to tell anyone what they should do before posting.

imported post

IOW there is no duty associated with the First Amendment Right of free speech. I disagree. What is the difference between a sophomoric opinion and an adult opinion?

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

IOW there is no duty associated with the First Amendment Right of free speech. I disagree. What is the difference between a sophomoric opinion and an adult opinion?

Click to expand...

If nobody could participate in a free and open discussion on a topic without first learning everything to possibly know about it.. there would be no open discussion. It would be the passing of information that both parties already know.

So what would be the point?

The idea of this very board... is for those that are interested can learn by participating in an open dialog and discovering things they may not have known.

The very premise that you cannot talk about a topic unless you have studied it in depthis moronic!!

I could use this very logic on every thread that peoplehave posted in regard to state laws. Yet.. I understand that not everything is known so I pass along details to help them learn and expand their knowledge.

I am not going toorder them to leave and come back when they know everything about state laws.That is just asinine.

How can you contrive some type of "duty" out of a open discussion anyway?

Not all of us are rocket scientists like you Doug. :lol:

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

possumboy wrote:

Look deeper next time before replying. The Feds are not offering to help.

The feasible situation does not exist within the Real ID Act. It would have to be redone.

Click to expand...

YES SIR!! I was unaware I was taking orders from you and not entitled to join inon anydiscussion.

We are all entitled to give our opinion and ideas. You are in no position to tell anyone what they should do before posting.

Click to expand...

Try not speaking with authority when you have no idea or provide the facts to backup your statements.

You could also realize that it wasn't an attack on you, you just seemed to take it personally. I could really care less if you talk or not. Just don't make statement of facts that aren't true, or qualify with an "I believe" statement.

This side conversation is over.

imported post

possumboy wrote:

Try not speaking with authority when you have no idea or provide the facts to backup your statements.

You could also realize that it wasn't an attack on you, you just seemed to take it personally. I could really care less if you talk or not. Just don't make statement of facts that aren't true, or qualify with an "I believe" statement.

This side conversation is over.

Click to expand...

Speaking with authority? Where did my opinion come off as authority. My opinion on this topic has no more authority than yours.

I could only speak with authority if I was actually employed by the state and worked inthe area of grants or ID cards. Clearly... I do not!

I am working off what I believe to be true from information I received in the past.I have not seen anything from youto back up what you have claimed either. So what you are saying is only a belief until you have proven it to be true.

Many of us may not know all the details but that is why come here to discover what we do not know. Your logic is flawed in that you cannot learn anything here until you have already learned all that there is to know someplace else.

This board is FULL of "I believe this or that" statements. Some people are right and some are wrong. They find outfrom others who guide them in the right direction. Not submit they leave and return when they are all knowing on the topic.

"Look deeper next time before replying."

This was not posted as a suggestion. It was posted as an order. Nowhere was itoptional.

Perhaps you need to modify how you post a suggestion in the future.

Enough on the matter.. Let's move forward.

imported post

[align=left]The state of Virginiaalready capturesthe minimumdetails as required by the feds for the Real ID card.Virginia is concernedabout requiring the display of the home address since the state is aware of the safety concerns of others who may currently use an alternate address.[/align]

[align=left]The state is OBVIOUSLY concerned about the address issue and is looking for a way out of this requirement.[/align]

[align=left]There is also federal funding that may be available as the implementation is going to be costly. Taking advantage of any federal money will likely be done while it is available.[/align]

[align=left]DHS plan for implementation and $6 million is earmarked for pilot projects to integrate hardware, software, and information management systems.

Though most of the requirements are either already met on Virginia’s current cards or will be met when Virginia transitions to central issue, display of principal residence on the credential itself could pose a hardship or present safety and privacy concerns for many Virginia residents.[/align]


[align=left]Virginia code section §46.2-342 currently requires applicants for DL/IDs to provide acceptable proof of their Virginia residential address. Once they have done so, they are permitted, by law, to display an alternate Virginia address on their DL/ID rather than their residence address. This allowance was made to provide for enhanced privacy and personal safety.[/align]


[align=left]Under the REAL ID Act, the requirement that the residential address be displayed on the credential could pose a hardship to individuals, such as victims of stalkers or domestic abuse, who, for their own safety, need to keep their addresses private. As currently written, the Act would force individuals in these situations to display their residence address on their DL/ID.

It is assumed that this requirement was included in the Act to ensure that law enforcement and other entities would be able to determine the bearer’s residence when looking at the credential. However, consideration should be given to the fact that law enforcement and other governmental entities are currently able to gain access to DMV records or information for official purposes, and therefore, are able to gain access to residence addresses. This calls into question whether it is necessary to put residents at risk by displaying the residence address on the credential.
[/align]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

If the state refuses and sticks to their current ID system.... they are going to loose federal money.

No big deal, right? Tell the feds to keep their cash!!!

Click to expand...

Compliance usually costs more than would be lost. And even when it doesn't, sometimes it's worth it to give Washington the single-digit salute.

This is why New Hampshire forgoes the federal highway funds they lose by not having mandatory seatbelt laws.

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

Compliance usually costs more than would be lost. And even when it doesn't, sometimes it's worth it to give Washington the single-digit salute.

This is why New Hampshire forgoes the federal highway funds they lose by not having mandatory seatbelt laws.

Click to expand...

It appears there are two ways it can work... your current license would be the REAL ID and simply contain some additional security features since the rest of the info is already on it.

Or the alternative is to allow people to get an optional REAL ID card.

Finally.... your example of NH is what I was eluding to earlier. The feds give money to the state but requires seat belt laws. The same thing could happen in thatthe feds"could" give additional funds to states that adopt the REAL ID program.

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

SNIP This is why New Hampshire forgoes the federal highway funds they lose by not having mandatory seatbelt laws.

Click to expand...

I guess NH is smart enough to know that the feds can't give money without first taking it.

Sort of a, "We'll take some from you, but give it back for abc, if you do xyz."

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Last edited on Sat Oct 4th, 2008 05:54 pm by Tomahawk

Click to expand...

One of these days, you're gonna bite your tongue---off.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP So now you are up against all the people in the state that could care less about your thoughts in a national ID system. They want those services they currently have and they do NOT want to pay higher taxes.

Goodluck making everyone happy.. :lol:

Click to expand...

Forum,

This is a nasty little tactic--make the opposition seem overwhelming.Add a hint of invalidation toward the listener's thoughts.

And then speak from the premise that its important making everyone happy.

Why would the listener bother trying if he bought this line of reasoning?