Is picture ID on a DL and a CCL an absolute must to ensure public safety?

[cuchulainn]

Mike in Va Frankly, sir, I find your 'absolutist' positions to be a bit too much, "

I've already said many times in this thread that there can be valid reasons for civil law to stop religious practices. The most extreme, of course, would be stopping human sacrifice. There probably are others.

I even have said that I'd be willing to accept what is being done to this woman IF someone gives me a compelling state interest in having photo DLs. No one has. Photo DLs don't make the highways more safe, don't stop crime or terrorism and (being so laughably easy to fake) don't even assure the identity of the holder.

Fact: No matter how much anyone belittles this woman's religious conviction, suggests that her veil is "not mandatory" or questions her character, her 1st Amendment right to express her religion convictions by dressing a certain way is being infringed.

Fine. Infringe her religious expression. All I am asking is that someone first give me a compelling state interest for setting aside the First Amendment.

Mike in Va Let's focus on what 'works'.

Well, "what works" certainly isn't photo DLs. In fact, we haven't learned what photo DLs "work" to do in four pages of posts.

We're simply willing to infringe her rights on on the assumption that the need for a photo DL is self evident. Sorry, the need is not self evident.

 

[longeyes]

Let's carry your view of the 1A out to its maximum expression. What America will become will be a constellation of "religious" enclaves. That may or may not be what you intend or what the Framers intended or were comfortable with.

But from what I see around me, in terms of the growth of "special interests" and those who believe various groups and categories and tribes all deserve exemptions from commonly held and respected civil laws, that day is fast arising. A balkanized America is not a prospect I find especially appealing, particularly one where the fragmented groups are able to get subsidies from the main body of "believers." How long such a country will survive in the global reality is anyone's guess.

I still say only a fool grants freedom to people who would take it from him. That's not magnanimity, that's a desire for self-annihilation (and that, by the way, strikes me as a core predicate in so much of today's leftwing thinking).

 

[cuchulainn]

What America will become will be a constellation of "religious" enclaves.

It already is. It has been for centuries. For centuries we've granted exceptions to civil law for religious acts. The Republic has not fallen.

I still say only a fool grants freedom to people who would take it from him.

This woman has not attacked anyone's freedom as far as I know. Many here have attacked hers.

The point is to put up walls against infringement wherever it occurs. The target of the infringement is less important than keeping the infringers in their place.

I'll see your aphorism and raise you with my own aphorism: "Those who would give the wolves the keys to the city because tonight they target only the houses of those who never stand watch, give the wolves access to their own homes tomorrow night."

by the way, strikes me as a core predicate in so much of today's leftwing thinking

And I see it as just the opposite. Placing civil law above religion to "protect" us from clashing religions is predicate in leftwing thinking. Horrors that we might be subjected to Christmas carols in public schools or menorahs on the courthouse lawn. Help, Help, we're being balkanized. First menorahs at the courthouse; next civil war! Save use ACLU! Save us.

 

[XLMiguel]

Sir, the 'ingringement' is rather trivial, if it is one at all - she has to put aside the veil long enough for a picture to be taken, and perhaps again if she ever finds herself in a situation requiring that she establish her identity. It hardly prevents her from expressing her religious beliefs or mode of dress.

The closest I can come to a compelling state interest is as follows: In order to get a DL, one must prove basic competence to operate a motor vehicle. A DL is proof that the holder meets that minimum standard (such as it is-). In the event of an accident or code infraction, the state has a legitmate need to know who it is dealing with and are they indeed, authorized to be operating a motor vehicle. The DL is part of that 'authorization'.

A photo ID may not be the be all-end all of identification, it is but another data point, and as such, it's pretty useful and definitely better than nothing. Granted, it isn't perfect, it can be faked, but faked ID is pretty good proof of nefarious intent, no? I mean, if you're up to no good, are you going to quibble over a like thing like ID (or gun control laws)?

This arguement can go way over the top as far as how intrusive the .gov could go in requiring proof of identity (and we all fear that it's likely to get worse in the future). Fact is, we all validate our identity numerous times a day in the course of taking care of business. There are literally hundreds of circumstances where positive ID is necessary when dealing with the .gov (and others), and photo ID is part of the deal. It is a two-way street, ya know.

 

[cuchulainn]

Mike in Va. In the event of an accident or code infraction, the state has a legitmate need to know who it is dealing with and are they indeed, authorized to be operating a motor vehicle. The DL is part of that 'authorization'.

Speaking of "what works"...

Did the states truly become more able to do that with the addition of photos on DLs?

Do states that still do not require photos have a greater difficulty in establishing identity? (edited to add "not" oops).

And BTW, I got a traffic citation about two years ago in Virginia. I started to get my license out, and the cop said it wasn't needed. I got the ticket, and he never looked at my license -- he simply punched my car tag into his computer and got all my information. He took my word that it was "my car."

If the photo on my DL was so vital to his needs, why did he wave it off?

There are literally hundreds of circumstances where positive ID is necessary when dealing with the .gov (and others), and photo ID is part of the deal. It is a two-way street, ya know.

That changes the subject from the need for a photo on a DL to the need to identify yourself in non-driving circumstances. That raises the debate of whether DLs ought to be universal IDs (and the "yes" side is losing that debate, partly because of how Virginia DLs aided the 9/11 terrorism).

 

[XLMiguel]

OK

And BTW, I got a traffic citation about two years ago in Virginia. I started to get my license out, and the cop said it wasn't needed. I got the ticket, and he never looked at my license -- he simply punched my car tag into his computer and got all my information. He took my word that it was "my car."

And if your state puts a digital photo on your license, he probably got that on his computer, too, which may be why he didn't question your ownership. Then again, maybe he's just a good judge of character

As stated, the pic is a useful datapoint and required by law. If you don't like the law, change it. In the meantime, live with it. I'm with Longeyes - sick and tired of every crappy litttle minority group yammering for 'special' treatment and the puddleheads that want to give it to them.

It's clear that your aren't going to change your opinion, nor am I, so I think I'll go cut the grass and then maybe a trip to the range. Adios.

 

[cuchulainn]

Mike in Va.

I hope your grass wasn't as long as mine after all this rain.

With all due respect, I do not see the logic in violating the First Amendment to :

1) assure that we can quickly determine that a person is the valid possessor of a license that you readily admit all but fails to ensure the ability to drive safely (see your statement: "such as it is").

or

2) condition a person's legal ability to drive upon the need to identify him at Walmart when he is writing a check.

sick and tired of every crappy litttle minority group yammering for 'special' treatment and the puddleheads that want to give it to them.

Why are you sick and tired of the puddleheads that want to give into the yammering of a minority of gun owners who want to get CCWs without proving they need to? Shall-issue advocates are a minority within a minority. The nerve of giving into their yammering.

We really should listen to the majority of Americans who want more gun control. This is a Democracy, not a Constitutional Republic, after all.

If you don't like the law, change it.

Um, that's why she brought the challenge to court. She is trying to change it.

 

[XLMiguel]

Yeah, it was closer to brininging in the hay, it's rained 23/31 days in May here, all sorts of outdoor projects half done or on hold. I ain't geting tan, I'm rusting.

I guess we'll just have to disagree, as I just don't see it as a violation of her 1st Amendment rights. (and let's not digress on the sorry state of the DMV and the quality of drivers they turn loose on our highways, that's a whole 'nother rant . . .)

The whole issue of ID & personal privacy gets pretty hairy pretty quickly, but we've got to start somewhere, and picture IDs are useful. Virtually any ID system can be defeated, it's just a question of how much time & $$$ you're willing to ivest to do so, but what's an acceptable minimum standard? FWIW, my VA CWP doesn't have a picture on it, but I believe I'm required to present it with my DL if requested.

RE; Shall Issue CCW,with all due respect, you sound a little paranoid. I believe at last count 34/50 states are currently 'shall issue', with a couple more pending. How did us 'minority' gun owners oppress all them state governemnts into going 'shall issue'? The truth is (depending on whose poll you believe) somewhere between 60 and 80-some percent of the American public believes in the 2nd Amendment. Even the Democrats have realized that 'gun control' is a losing issue ( at least as currently framed).

This is not to say that there isn't a very vocal, duplicious, evil and unethical minority of whiners that will continue to try and take away our rights. The price of Liberty, after all, is eternal vigilence, and we must continue to work very hard at protecting the RKBA, along with the rest of the BOR.

The puddleheads I was refering to would be all the whiney, blissninny liberal idiots who think that 'multiculturalism' is some sort or social goal, and think that we should 'celebrate diversity' and give a pass to every pissant special interest group that claims to be 'different'. "Fair" means fair for ALL. America is 'the melting pot', we are multicultural by definition. Always have been. The last thing we need is a bunch of politically correct, hyphenated "-Americans" to fragment things. It focuses on where you're from, not where you're going. High among the reasons we are the great (and still improving) nation we are today is because we have been able to assimilate and integrate the best features and values of all the diverse people (and their associated cultures) who have come to this country. American culture is a spicy gumbo of world cultures. It is unique, vibrant, evolutionary, and, oh, yeah, diverse - and that's what makes it "American", and we treasure that. And BTW, we gun owners ARE a majority, we just need to start acting like one.

Oh, yeah, as far as changing the law - I believe we still do that through the legislature, not the courts. I'll grant you that legal challenge/judicial review is a legitimate tactic as part of a balance of powers, but lately it seems that it is more typical of the gun-grabbers and corrupt city administrations who couldn't get traction in the legislature (generally, for good reason), than those with legitimate grievances (and most laws do go through a judicial review as part of the drafting and approval process). It's pretty onerous when abused.

 

[Erik]

"Fine. Infringe her religious expression. All I am asking is that someone first give me a compelling state interest for setting aside the First Amendment."

Well, since none of the arguments presented are compelling enough:

She is eroneously claiming first amendment protection:

Women who follow the Islamic faith are not prohibited by that faith from having a photo ID.

The "veil thing" is a cultural taboo, not a religious one. That some people who practice the Islamic faith seek to emulate Arabic culture does not make said emulation religious in nature.

As such, when she claims that her first amendment rights are being violated, it simply is not so.

A quick review of the passports and drivers licenses issued by nations where the majority is Islamic is all that is necessary to settle the matter.