Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
United States Government Your Rights Online Politics

Montana Says No to Real ID, Passes Law to Deny It 518

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Constitution (Score:4, Informative)

    by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <<falconsoaring_2000> <at> <>> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:53PM (#18789535)

    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.

    The author of the "Declaration Of Independence", Thomas Jefferson, woud be rolling in his grave if he knew the federal government outlawed hemp, aka marijuana and pot. He grew hemp on his farm and once said there should be a law requiring farmers to grow it. He didn't propose a law though because he knew such a law would be a restriction on the rights of farmers. The only reason hemp was made illegal was because it posed a threat to some rich and powerful people, amoung them DuPont, William Randolph Hearst, Rockfeller, and Rothschild.

  • Re:Constitution (Score:3, Informative)

    by G00F ( 241765 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:09PM (#18789729) Homepage
    The cosntitutiomn was ment as a way to presever our rights as humand, and limit what can be taken away. Howe3ver, none of that matters anymore since the Constitution is just goddamned piece of paper []

    there are things that could work as preventing the use of national ID's [] []

    But then any lawer and paid by the government judge will make swish chease of even the most simplest of rights.
  • Re:Good trend (Score:3, Informative)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:26PM (#18789925) Homepage Journal
    Now if they can only bring back the old "reasonable and prudent" daytime speed limits, also in defiance of the federal government...

    When the Republicans took over congress in 1995, one of the things they did was uncouple federal highway funds from the 55 speed limit.

  • Re:About Time (Score:3, Informative)

    by real gumby ( 11516 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:32PM (#18790007)
    Why should driving licenses function as "ID?" All the police should need to know is that you have proven you know how to drive and have paid your driving tax. Driving licenses would function just as well if they merely had your photo on them -- no name, no numbers, nothing.

    Oops, you lost your driving license? Pay the fee and get another (if you pass the driving test).

    Don't mix the driving and "REAL ID" issues.

    This posting should not be taken as advocating for or against this legislation -- merely pointing out that the position in that posting is unsupported.
  • History of This (Score:4, Informative)

    by David Greene ( 463 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:53PM (#18790291)

    Real ID was passed back as part of an "essential" Iraq funding package. As such it had no separate committee hearings. And at the time, guess who controlled Congress?

    Many states are opposed to this not due to privacy concerns but simply because it's another unfunded federal mandate. Minnesota estimates it will cost the state $31 million over five years. Total national costs have ballooned to something like $17 billion. Congress allocated all of $40 million to pay for it.

    I know it would take some work for me to produce a certified birth certificate or passport to get a license.

    It will be interesting to see what happens when boarding restrictions, etc. go into effect. If this law isn't killed outright at the federal level, I believe it will be effectively ignored in many situations.

    More info and an opinion piece: [] []
  • Re:About Time (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:35PM (#18790811)
    It wasn't until recently that Montana adopted speed limits on their highway system in response to threats by the feds to take away funding for their highway infrastructure.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:38PM (#18790853)
    Well, to be fair, it's difficult to tell the difference between those who don't have a life and those who don't have a sense of humor.
  • Re:About Time (Score:4, Informative)

    by mr_mischief ( 456295 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @09:02PM (#18791201) Journal
    If you've never driven in L.A., Chicago, or Atlanta, I invite you to try before you put down the idea of licensing drivers. And remember, those are mostly people who are licensed weaving in and out around you.

    The theory of law that allows driver's licenses is that you're actually quite free to drive so much as you want without one. It's the privilege of making use of publicly built and maintained streets and roads which requires a license. The original purpose was to assure the public that other people around them could safely operate their vehicles according to the traffic laws.

    Now it's just about getting as much money to the state as possible and another way to punish people for their illegal acts. Failing to pay child support can get a license suspended or revoked in some states, for example.
  • Republican (Score:3, Informative)

    by Guuge ( 719028 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @09:10PM (#18791301)

    It makes Bush the same thing as the congressional Republicans who drafted and overwhelmingly voted for the Real ID act.

    I'd like to blame Bush and dismiss his presidency as a fluke, but all signs indicate that what we're seeing in the White House represents the direction the Republican party is headed. And that is sad.

  • Re:flying (Score:3, Informative)

    by putaro ( 235078 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @01:51AM (#18794019) Journal
    No, you do have to show ID. Based on a secret government rule, no less. [] John Gilmore took it all the way to the Supreme Court and they declined to hear the case.
  • by bloobloo ( 957543 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @04:44AM (#18795011) Homepage
    Have a look at [] for a good explanation about the problem with natural ropes. When nylon wasn't available in sufficiently large quantities then obviously it couldn't be used.

    For airbags, the quality control is extremely tight. The specification for the monomer salt is a variability of +/- 0.03 of a pH which is about as close as you can possible measure. There's no way you can get that kind of consistency from a natural product.
  • Erm... no (Score:2, Informative)

    by bobkoure ( 701950 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @09:49AM (#18797079)
    Read north Carolina's declaration of secession. They clearly state that they are leaving the union over rights of "property" (common code word in the South of the time - meaning "slaves"). The Dred Scott decision was somewhat recent (forced northerners to hand over any escaped "property") - and many northerners were pretty vocal about not being willing to follow this Federal mandate. NC secession was a reaction to that rejection.

    I think you might be a victim of the revisionism that happened primarily 1865-1890 - or secondary "history" books that were influenced by this. Try reading some of the Southern announcements of secession. They're all pretty clear it's about "property". If you read what's written (particularly by southerners) after the end of the war, remember that they then had a reason to present secession as something that the North had "forced" them into.

    ...interesting that my captcha to post this is "redneck"...:-)

The trouble with the rat-race is that even if you win, you're still a rat. -- Lily Tomlin