Montana Says No to Real ID, Passes Law to Deny It

SoCalChris writes "Montana's governor signed a bill yesterday in defiance of the Real ID Act. House Bill 287 [PDF] requires the Montana Motor Vehicle Division to not implement the provisions of the Real ID Act, and to report to the governor any attempts by any agent or agency of the Department of Homeland Security to attempt to implement the bill. Montana is the first state to implement such a law."

About Time

[Pantero Blanco (792776)]

Considering how corrupt the federal government has become over the past few decades, I think it's about time individuals and states alike started taking back their rights.

I hope Montana doesn't fold when the feds start pressing them like everyone did over the drinking age.

Re:About Time

[Pharmboy (216950)]

California and South Carolina still haven't been able to setup databases for child support payments by divorced fathers. What makes people think they can sync their DLs with the feds?

Re:About Time

[rossz (67331)]

Since the overwhelming majority of fathers behind in their payments is because of inability to pay, a database isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. Child support (and alimony) are pretty much set in stone and a change in the man's employment situation doesn't matter. If he suddenly finds him self unemployed or under-employed, as I'm sure happened to many slashdotters when the the dot com boost finally went belly up, he still has to pay the original amount. The court enforced amount is partially based on the man's earning capability (to prevent assholes from quiting good jobs just to screw their ex-wives), but the courts are blind to massive changes in the economy.

Re:About Time

[truthsearch (249536)]

I guess some people don't really care if a truck driver that gets drunk and kills a few people while driving, is allowed to drive in Montana because he hasn't been revoked there.

Wow, you're right! No one would ever get behind the wheel of a vehicle without a proper license! Problem solved.

You're kidding, right? You do know lots of people drive without a license. They're not usually caught until they're in an accident.

License

[Mark_MF-WN (678030)]

Hey, there's an easy answer for that one. Put an RFID tag into every license plate (or into the tags, since those need to be replaced all the time anyway). Then put RFID scanners into every traffic light, every intersection, periodically in streetlights, etc. Anytime a car passes without a valid RFID-tagged license plate, the scanner automically signals the nearest police car, photographs the car, activates the vehicles "disable" code, detonates the land mines, deploys the hunter-killer bot, or whatever else the state feels is an appropriate response. And if the vehicle DOES have a valid RFID tag, then it's a simple matter to verify whether or not the owner has an approved license. It doesn't help much if the driver of the vehicle isn't the owner, but that's what the RFID tags that were jammed into everyone's skulls were for. Seriously though -- RFID license plates and traffic light camera/RFID-scanner set-ups are basically a foregone conclusion at this point. They're inevitable.

Re:License

[Mark_MF-WN (678030)]

Well, let's see: local government is full of people who are functionally indistinguishable from people in big government, except that they are either too pathetic to make it into big government, or are still working their way up.

Sure, the wretchedly tiny minority of genuinely good people in small government is slightly larger than the wretchedly tiny minority of genuinely good people in big government ... but that's like saying that a vegan's feces will have more intact kernels of corn than those of a guy who eats nothing but steak. Either way, you have to go rooting through shit to find out, and neither is really any better than the other. There are easier ways to get corn.

And "individuals"? They are remarkably rare. Anyone who actually thinks about anything beyond who America's next top model will be, is in such a small and inconsequential group of people that nothing they do is capable of having any real impact on anything ... other than to invent new technologies that can be used to make everyone more affluent and less free.

I know, it's hard to accept the reality of this: one of the most fascinating psychological phenomena discovered in the past decade is the fact that nearly all Human behaviour and social understanding is predicted on the assumption that we are in the majority. We assume that whatever we want, whatever we believe, whatever we choose, is what most everyone else will wants/believes/chooses. But if you actually stop to think about anything beyond the most superficial drivel, you have placed yourself in a tiny, tiny minority, and nothing about you or what you think or believe is even remotely representative of your society.

I'm moving there

[drgonzo59 (747139)]

I hope they need Python or Java developers. Perhaps black bears could use some custom software to optimize their search for berries...

If this week has taught us anything...

[sczimme (603413)]

Perhaps black bears could use some custom software to optimize their search for berries...

If this week has taught us anything, it's that one should always have a backup plan for black-bear-ies.

Re:I'm moving there

[pschmied (5648)]

As a Montanan who has since moved down south... of the equator to New Zealand, I can say that the job market probably isn't what you want. There are very few employers.

That said, Montana's a beautiful place. Oh, and the Kettlehouse (MT brew) brews the best beer in the world.

We used to joke about people moving to Montana to pay the scenery tax. Short answer, you're probably not going to get rich there.

I remember an old "PR" campain in MT to discourage Californians from moving in:

"Montana Sucks. Now go home and tell your friends."

Re:I'm moving there

[shaitand (626655)]

'Short answer, you're probably not going to get rich there.'

No kidding, I took a train from Chicago to Portland that went across Montana lengthwise. You could tell you had entered Montana when you couldn't see anything, not even on the horizon. You could tell when you left Montana because you saw things again.

Hell I don't even remember any towns. I saw a couple dead trees but thats about it.

Good trend

[SuperKendall (25149)]

Now if they can only bring back the old "reasonable and prudent" daytime speed limits, also in defiance of the federal government...

Re:Good trend

[by Anonymous Coward]

The 18-year-old drinking age and some drunken driving limits were also forced on states by saying "pass this law or we'll cut you out of federal highway funds your people paid for in taxes". A total end run around the constitution that the big chief court in Washington had no problem with. I'm sure there's a long list of this abuse someplace.

Good for them.

[apathy maybe (922212)]

I'm not in the USA, so my comments are general. I'll get that out of the way first.

The linking of databases, such as required by Real ID has a large number of problems and few benefits (unless you are a totalitarian). There are inevitably going to be problems with control to the data (who has access?), it isn't going to stop fake ID's and it paves the way for people to give up more and more information to a central state.

The benefits are simple, the state gets a large access which it can then use (and most of the time misuse). It will be inevitably linked to other databases, and then the state can do what the East German state did.

It knows when you broke the law, and if you do something it doesn't like, it pulls you in and charges you with whatever it likes. After all, who hasn't broken some law or another?

This comment from the BillingsGazette, shows some other possible uses for the government.

"We also don't think that bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., ought to tell us that if we're going to get on a plane we have to carry their card, so when it's scanned through they know where you went, when you got there and when you came home," said Schweitzer, a Democrat.

(And isn't Montana the state with the highest level of gun ownership or something? Someone should shoot the federal agents, that would teach the fuckers.)

Re:Good for them.

[halo8 (445515)]

who hasn't broken some law or another?

Thats the key phrase, right there.
who hasn't broken some law or another?

For those people that dont care about CCTV and Orwellian ideas that they have in Britain because they dont think of themselvs as a criminal, Think Again.

In Singapore chewing gum and spitting are crimes
Speeding is a crime, not using your turn signals is a crime
Books and CD's have been banned in schools
Trans Fat is illegal in some cities

And it works both ways, Republicans or Democrats, Left or Right.
What if gun were banned?
Missed Child Payments
what if using a racial slur was a criminal offense
Getting angry and making a threat.
Vengeful Neighbours
Banning certain music or concerts dances clothes
its goes on and on and on

Sadly, its not to hard to imagine.

Once the goverment gots you, the GOT you, your in the system.
good luck trying to fly
good luck renewing your license (Driving, Hunting, Practicing whatever...)
good luck getting a job or a mortgage

Never mind those ones...

[real gumby (11516)]

For those people that dont care about CCTV and Orwellian ideas that they have in Britain because they dont think of themselvs as a criminal, Think Again....[list of example laws]

How would you even know, if the law you were violating were a secret law [papersplease.org]?

Wow, I love this

[rockhome (97505)]

I am a huge fan of the Montana state legislature right. To unanimously pass that kind of legislation says two things :

1. They are for their constituents interests on this one.
2. They are standing up for State's rights and not handing over ever more power to the federal government.

Kudos to you Montana. As Stephen Colbert migh say, You've got balls!

Constitution

[iamacat (583406)]

US constitution never envisioned federal government regulating every small detail of our lives, be it a form of ID used or smoking pot in the privacy of one's backyard. It aberrant to subject 149 million people to a preference of 151 million. It's time to delegate most decisions to state level, where they would be hopefully passed on to local governments to honor the spirit of constitution (that was written when the whole US population was smaller than some metropolitan areas now).

Freedom

[QuickFox (311231)]

FTA:

[...] said Schweitzer, a Democrat. "This is still a free country and there are no freer people than the people that we have in Montana."

Well, that's precisely the problem! That's exactly the problem that we're solving here.

No one hates your freedom like we do... Uh, oops, I mean, like the terrorists do. Everybody knows it's the terrorists who hate your freedom. And of course only the terrorists can take your freedom away... Uh, um, no, not exactly, they can't... In fact only we can take your freedom away... er... You shouldn't question these things... Now be a good patriot and lie down and let us step on you for your protection.

In other news ...

[by Anonymous Coward]

In other news .. the entire state of Montana has been declared an "Enemy Combatant". Plans are under way to use the national guard to secure and build GitmoII around the entire state.

Seventeenth Amendment Repeal, anybody?

[sehlat (180760)]

The original constitution provided for the House to be elected directly by the people of their state, and for Senators to be elected or appointed by the state legislatures. What this meant was that Senators who acted against the perceived interests of their state would have a short service life. It also meant that a lot of the things we see coming out of Washington, including such "unfunded mandates" as the Real ID act, which imposes enormous costs on the states that the Federal government doesn't pay for, can't be remedied by the legislatures who have to vote the money for these things recalling them.

No one seems to have noticed.....

[tx_kanuck (667833)]

Lets say, just for the sake of this argument, that I am from Montana. Lets also say that I don't have a passport. If I am not allowed to enter Federal Buildings without a RealID compliant drivers license or passport, wouldn't that mean that I am now forbidden to enter Federal Court? So now I cannot sue anyone in Federal Court. When the State court and Federal Court share a building, I cannot even go to State Court. And the best part? Since the passport office is a federal building, I can't even go to the passport office to get a RealID compliant ID card. Oh yeah, I can't even meet with the IRS to go over my taxes. I just became a non-person. Of course, that assumes a strict reading of the law, and IANAL.

That being said, as soon as someone tried to enforce me not entering a Federal Court building, the judge would toss that law out. Hopefully.

Re:Lesson for the world

[ArcherB (796902)]

If only people and their elected respresentatives in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as other US states were as feisty about their privacy, then the real thrust of the 9/11 attacks would be rendered null and void. As it is, bin Laden (if alive) and his crew must be guffawing about how they've destroyed so much of that 'decadent infidel regime' in the west that also goes by the name of 'freedom'.

I don't get your statement. I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights. Please tell me what I'm missing so I can be an angry citizen like yourself.

Thank you.

ArcherB

Re:Lesson for the world

[Knuckles (8964)]

I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights. Please tell me what I'm missing

A life.

Re:Lesson for the world

[cicho (45472)]

The whole point of requiring an ID is to institute laws that will prevent you from doing certain things without the ID. That' and to make sure that when you do those things, the government can know about it.

And if they want to know about it, you may ask yourself what they are going to do with this knowledge.

Re:States Rights vs Federal Rights

[eln (21727)]

The Feds won that battle a long time ago by a.) allowing pretty much anything under an outrageously broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and b.) threatening to pull federal highway and other unrelated funds from states if they did not comply with random laws covering a broad range of topics.

Seems to me if the feds can threaten to pull funds that a state's taxpayers paid into if the state doesn't follow some totally unrelated regulation, the state should have the ability to opt out of paying into those types of funds on behalf of its taxpayers. So, if the feds pull highway funding, the states should be allowed to withhold the portion of federal taxes its citizens pay that would normally go to the federal highway budget and have the taxpayers pay that money directly to the state's highway fund instead.

Also, I'd like a unicorn.