I have posted before on this topic, but just to remind folks, your Missouri drivers license will not be considered a valid form of identification soon.
Starting January 1, 2018 it will no longer be considered valid identification for boarding an airplane or entering any federal building or facility including military bases, court houses, and such.
The reason for this is that some right-wing nut-jobs in our Missouri legislature think this is some sort of federal government over-reach as they seek to standardize what is considered a valid id card across all the states. As you can imagine, all states have different rules for what is on your license, and how it is made tamper proof.
I guess our Missouri legislature thinks we are too special to have the same features on our licenses as everybody else. The following excerpt from the editorial in the Kansas City Star sums things up pretty well.
"Lawmakers have yet to solve the problem with Real ID ó the conflict between federal rules that require minimum standards for acceptable identification and the belief that somehow those rules are a threat to personal liberty.
Missouriís obstinance on this issue will cause no end of headaches. Some federal locations already wonít accept Missouri driverís licenses as ID. By January, Missourians who want to fly somewhere will need to produce something other than a Missouri license to do so.
This is ludicrous in a state that insists on a photo ID to vote.
We think lawmakers should simply require the state to come into compliance with federal standards. But a reasonable compromise sits on the desk: For those worried that the state ID surrenders too much to the federal government, a non-compliant Missouri ID would be available.
Lawmakers should take the deal and send it to Gov. Eric Greitens. Once itís on his desk, Greitens should sign it and not wait for an exemption from the federal government.
Weíve heard there may be a special session called if Real ID isnít figured out by Friday. Wasting that money is entirely unnecessary."
Call your representative and let him know this needs to get fixxed!
Dean Dohrman, 573-751-2204
Dave Muntzel, 573-751-0169
Denny Hoskins, (573) 751-4302
(apparently Senator Hoskins doesn't give out his email address)
I think it's funny that Dems will completely stand against IDs to vote or IDs to prove your citizenship because it's racist or against poor people for forcing them to buy IDs. Yet we are cool with forcing everyone with a DL to go buy a new one despite the old one being good enough for decades.
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care. If they say I need a new one, than I'll go get a new one. Luckily I don't travel hardly at all so this really won't have any effect on me. But if it's still not going to be valid the next time I fly than I'll figure out what is valid and get that. In terms of traveling headaches that's actually a pretty easy one. And I actually do agree that if they say we need to up our DL game to new standards, than just do it and I'll go get an updated one.
But I just find it funny that Dems love federal government overreach forcing people to spend money they may not have on new IDs, while always bashing federal government overreach forcing people to spend money they may not have on new IDs.
Read the comments for what it is--opinions.
Also, old school--Real ID was passed before the previous Missouri licenses expired, giving Missouri legislators time to pass a format for an ID. This would allow a smooth transition from one ID to "REAL ID" standards. As SD noted, Missouri has some ignorant ideas of being "better"... If they truly had your interests in mind, they would have recognized the warnings from the government--if you don't use this standard for security features, etc. then you may not utilize any federal facilities or any perks
now, these ignorant people who enjoy their Missouri IDs, those receiving federal benefits should not receive them until they have proper Identification. This should help!!!
In my opinion--forcing REAL ID to pass and its enforcement is similar to some school districts. "We want new school busses" Ergo, a levy must be passed. If it doesn't pass--there will be no bus service for the students living outside walking distance. This forces parents/guardians to drive their children to school--you bet your a** as soon as the levy is back on the ballot it passes. If you limit benefits, you get what you want!
It might not make any difference to you, Oldschool, but there are a hell of a lot more Missourians than one.
There is no Democrat versus Republican argument to be made on this one. Just to clear things up, the RealID law was passed by the federal government in 2005 during the Bush Administration when conservatives were in charge of congress.
Missouri has had 12 years to revise it's standard drivers license to comply. The legislature only began to buck the feds after Obama's election in 2008.
I agree with Abovethelaw on this one, it's pure ignorance on the part of our dopes in the Missouri Legislature. Apparently they think they are making some sort of political statement. What they are actually doing is making life difficult for many Missourians in the future.
I know this isn't a Dem vs Rep issue. Just pointing out forcing people to buy new license for this seems like a great idea to you while forcing people to buy new license to vote you are 100% against. So are those same poor people who can't vote not supposed to travel? Not supposed to be allowed in court houses and things just because they are poor or live to far away to get a new license?
I wasn't saying screw everyone else I don't care. I was saying whatever everyone else wants I'm good with it. If they decide to hold strong then i'll get whatever ID I have to get before I travel again. If they decide to give in and get new license, then i'll go get a new one. Either way i'll have to get a new ID.
Old school-- you're still missing it...
Licenses expire normally after ~6 years. That forced you to "Pay" for a crap Missouri License which is obsolete as far as the federal standards are... That means you proved your own point. Why did Missouri make you pay for an ID once or twice--for no reason??
As SD stated, twelve years ago. Say, you had your ID issued in 2005--you've gone through two since it passed. That's ~$25...Money you say everyone, specifically Republicans are strapped for.
Wait, I think I've figured this out. I recently learned that Alex Jones has been whining about RealID since 2008. Amazingly, he was silent on the topic from it's passage in 2005 right up until the Obama Administration.
Then suddenly RealID became some sort of 'gubmint' over-reaching attempt to take away your guns and turn your children gay. I would assume it's been branded some sort of deep state, New World Order, Illuminati inspired spider goat lizard people plot.
Not kidding. This is another example of how lunatics on the web seem to be able to capture the attention of conservative politicians and get them to pursue some pretty stupid ideas.
Bless your little heart, America.
At the end of the day--everyone, especially Missouri resident (bias), will have new licenses. Why? Because mostly want to enter federal buildings and fly domestic air. Second, if federal benefits cease until there is verification they are in compliance--I wouldn't mind. Forget all the bull... we live in a sovereign nation first, then a state, county, city/municipality. Its why all you Marshall nice 'folks' fire off explosions July 4... Do you celebrate Missouri? I'll tell you don't... For you ignorant people, that August 10 (1821)
You are correct Above, except for the part of "everyone". Because you know those poor people who can't make it to a license office or afford $25 could not possibly ever be expected to do it. Surprised we even ask for IDs for anything considering how hard it is for those people to get proper identification. It's very offensive & prejudicial against those people.
Sarcasm aside, you are 100% correct on the last post Above. We'll all get new IDs whether it's updated MO drivers license or some other RealID verified source. I'm never in a government building that requires it, but I do enjoy flying every so often & airports are headaches enough.
Your previous point Above you actually missed the point I was making. Point being when voter ID is brought up people like Ricardo freak out over forcing poor or lazy people to get IDs to prove who they are so they can vote. Yet have no problem forcing everyone (including those people) to get off their butts and pay for a new license to get on a plane or walk into a publically funded federal building. I'm simply saying it's funny that those people call foul on one hand and fair on the other hand for literally the exact same thing.
I completely agree they should have just done this stupid ID thing 10 years ago and been done with it. But fact is, they didn't. So can either whine and moan and complain about what didn't happen, or deal with what's happening in front of you. Which is they'll either change the MO ID to fit the rules, or we'll just get a 2nd form of ID that fits. Either way we have to buy new IDs so just tell me which one to get and go on down the road.
Once again, Oldschool, you are either missing a big point about this, or using a false argument on purpose.
If Missouri had complied like virtually every other state, then at the time your license expired and was due for renewal, you would have been issued a new RealID compliant license. There have never been requirements to run out and trade in your license immediately. The 12 YEARS given should have been plenty of time for everyone in any state to have been issued an RealID at the time their license expired.
No one would have had to spend any more money to get a compliant ID, rich or poor.
Now that the Missouri legislature has screwed the pooch, Missourians who wish to fly or enter federal property will have to purchase additional identification that meets the RealID standard. Most likely a passport which may cost hundreds of dollars to get.
But I get it, you are trying to make the totally unrelated point that typically liberals don't support voter id requirements, which, of course has nothing at all to do with changing Missouri drivers licenses to comply with federal RealID standards.
I perfectly get they screwed up for 12 years. 100% agree they should have said from day 1 either doing it so here is new license on renewed or never doing it so go ahead and look for new. My point is they did it, so that's all done & gone. Complaint about 12 yrs ago doesn't effect what I have to do today. Today everyone will need to buy a new license (or a valid id) to fly or get into a federal building etc.
You seem to have no issue saying today we all have to go buy license, rather than saying y should we have to buy new when old license works fine? Why do poor people not matter with regards to air traffic & federal buildings but they do with voter registration?
Old school--They work fine...for now. What is the point of this thread now? I think we are all agreeing, only making our point differently. Your sentence towards SD doesn't seem correct. The "old" current license will not be accepted soon. There was a variance type approval that let states who are not currently in compliance until a certain date. SD's point is that the date is lurking--with no new licenses in sight...
Agree Above. The state will either have to change the look of the Drivers license so it qualifies and we all go get new license. Or they can be stubborn and not change the license. Which point we'll need to go get passports or something else that would qualify. Should have just changed the DL years ago.
Looks like our legislature is going to come in just under the 12 year deadline.
My favorite line in the article is a quote from Rep. Jon Carpenter, ďThis bill is jam-packed with unnecessary and frankly dumb concessions to far-right conspiracy theorists, but if this is my only option, and the best the Republican supermajority can do to fix the ID problem, I have to vote yes.Ē
Good to know that our legislature is achieving the high water mark of "barely under the wire" and "dumb, but the best we can do."
I will at least give him credit for admitting it's dumb. Most of the time they pass stuff full of dumb stuff and they play it off like it was the greatest thing since the Louisiana Purchase. It doesn't make it any better, but at least he's admitting it lol.
I still like you guys don't understand why we didn't just do this right away. I guess I don't see what the difference is. So they store my documents on a server, every document of my life is stored on some server some where, what's one more? I assumed every state would already happily share information regarding licenses because why wouldn't they?
I put this up there with people who hate DUI check points and things. You only don't like it if you have some reason to hide something. Because otherwise it really is meaningless and doesn't effect your life at all so why would you worry about it.
My passport cost me $100. You can obtain a passport card for $45 if you drive to Mexico or Canada but it is not valid for international air travel. On July 13, the passport is $135 and the passport card is $55. The passport card is as valid an ID as RealID. My RealID even confirms that I am a veteran.
Well, Oldschool, this article shoots some big fat holes in your "You only don't like it if you have some reason to hide something" attitude toward sobriety check points, doesn't it?
I have to wonder if you live in some sort of alternate universe where police never arrest innocent people who then have to spend months of their lives and thousands of dollars proving their innocence because the officer involved in sobriety checkpoints went with "guilty until proven innocent." Some lose their jobs due to the arrest.
It happens and it's becoming much more frequent. You really need to start paying attention to what America is today.
This is a thread about REAL ID--Missouri or similar state not in compliance. Get on a different thread to discuss off-topics
Looks like they are getting it fixed to were you can go get a new DL. I don't ever plan on flying outside of the US so I could get the cheapy passport if need be though.
Above must organize his socks by color and such.
As I started the thread, I feel entitled to abuse the topic in any way I see fit.
But, seriously, Oldschool. Weren't you trying to convince me the only people harmed by sobriety checkpoints are people with something to hide or people breaking the law?
The evidence provided in that linked article doesn't support your hypothesis.
Wait..... RealID..... Drivers License...... Driving ..... Sobriety Checkpoints......... False arrest due to improper subjective criteria.
Hows that for connecting the dots?
So because a few random people have issues that means shut down the whole program? If you live that much of a paranoid life than I'd like to know how you ever walk out of your house with all the bad things that could be possible.
Yes nothing is perfect. But to use that as an excuse to not have checkpoints makes literally no sense. Should we get rid of everything that doesn't have a 100% perfect success rate?
Mickey Mouse shouldn't be 'mickey mouse' in Steamboat Willie, he should just be "Steamboat Willie". The name should be changed. Thoughts? I like topic changes. Marshall people, you all MDN followers especially, love change and to yell and scream about it all.
Now, lets discuss this important matter... I like the way things uses to be... Like the good days...When we were all poor. We didn't know we were poor because we all were... right? Is that not the mentality here?
Google benefits of sobriety checkpoints Ricardo.
Keep reading. More than one article on Google.
Y'all are really annoying Above with this off topic discussion, you know?
And, yes, when it comes to things that can ruin someone's life, I would expect a 100% success rate.
I find your attitude somewhat disturbing, Oldschool. Of course one would think I would be used to your "hey, if it doesn't affect me, who cares if somebody else dies or gets their life ruined" world view by now.
So, data doesn't show any reduction in drunk driving deaths that can be attributed in any way what-so-ever to the 4th ammendment violation that is random sobriety checkpoints. Heck with Google, just analyze the data reported from the checkpoints we have locally.
I don't believe there were any arrests for drunk driving in any of them for the past 5 years or so, maybe longer. Like R1cardo said, mostly expired licenses or "bring in the drug dog" stuff.
They are simply for show, and a way for politicians to vote to spend more money on "law enforcement." The only benefit I can see to anyone is that some cops make some overtime pay.
And, there is factual evidence that many innocent people are harmed by them.
But, hey, as long as it's not you being charged with a crime you didn't commit, who cares? Right Oldschool? I mean what's the big deal if you lose your job because your were wrongly arrested? No big thing if you have to spend your life savings on lawyers to do battle with bad cops and prosecutors, eh?
My how your story would change if it was you who was arrested for driving while smoking pot because some local hot-shot cop decided you were guilty with no evidence.
Listen SD, you can dream for a 100% success rate all you want. There is nothing on this earth that is a 100% success rate except death. Doctors mess up surgeries & miss diagnosis. Office workers screw up paper work. Cops get the wrong guy. Jury's let guilty people walk and put innocent people in jail. Pilots crash planes, truck drivers get in wrecks. Why is it you aren't calling for all these people to be fired and arrested immediately? Why don't we shut down those jobs since they don't have a 100% success rate?
You ever think the reason why they don't catch drunk drivers is simply because they have them? I mean it takes a special kind of dumb person to drive drunk when it's been announced they are having a checkpoint that night. Personally I'd stop announcing it, but guess there is some rule they have too. And I'm sorry I don't feel sorry for people who have expired license, drugs in the car or anything else that get in trouble.
Also, it's been to the supreme court, it does not violate your 4th amendment right according to them so that argument is dead in the water.
I know I've specifically not drank at a restaurant because I knew there was a checkpoint that night. I doubt I'm the only one with that opinion. Thus it is doing the job of preventing drunk driving at the same time catching those who are stupid and ignore the warning.
I don't kill people or rob anyone for the same reasons. Fear of punishment. It's part of crime prevention. If you don't fear the punishment the likely hood of crime would increase. Some people don't do things because they don't want to or their moral compass doesn't allow it. Others don't do it solely because of fear of punishment.
Oldschool, you are the great defender of the status quo at all turns.
If a politician told a prosecutor to tell a police officer to tell you to jump of a cliff, would you do it?
No because they would be telling me to commit suicide which I won't do. That actually doesn't even make sense SD. If you are going to use that analogy at least put it in a realistic situation that makes it questionable.
Please explain Ricardo how you are living your life differently from me? Do you obey laws whether agree with them or not? Do you pay taxes, whether agree or not? Do you vote in elections no matter who wins? Do you follow legislations no matter which side passes it?
Only reason no, big reason yes. That's the whole reason to have punishment, to deter people from committing crimes. Without punishment the only thing stopping people from doing bad things is each persons own moral code. We all know not everyone has the exact same moral code.
So again make it realistic Ricardo. There will never be law that says you must kill yourself. If you guys come up with something realistic I'd be happy to comment.
"I don't kill people or rob anyone for the same reasons. Fear of punishment."
Hey, at least it's good that you recognize that you have no moral or ethical compass, Oldschool, as you said the only thing that keeps you from committing heinous crimes is fear.
Morality & ethics are subjective SD. If they weren't illegal, they wouldn't be heinous crimes by definition for example.
Than I'd follow the law. Going to jail, being away from my family and will to live trumps my personal moral code.
Do people not have different ethics & moral standards?
Of course they do, but MINE are the CORRECT ETHICS, dammit! /s
So now I have to kill my whole family? You do see how bad it looks for you that you have to go to the most extreme possible to even hope of proving whatever point it is you are willing to do right?
Plus in you're crazy scenarios, you are yet to list what the punishment would be. Which since punishment is what we are talking about seems odd you keep leaving that part out.
I mean if the punishment for speeding was 2 years in jail, then I'd never speed. If jay walking was 1 year in prison, I'd wear cross walks out. If stealing was only a $50 ticket, well I'd say it would be worth the risk to try to walk out with $200 phone without paying.
So you want to stick to the insane impossibility cause it's the only way to prove your point, that's fine I'll do it. But what are the parameters? Do I have to do away with my family or someone else? Is it simply they go away, or are they being killed? What is the punishment if they aren't done away with? That's not being picky either, especially the punishment part seeing as how punishment is how this whole topic started anyway.
I don't get turned on by forcing woman, so no not into rape legal or not. Murder is more iffy probably. If punishment was $50 fine then I wouldn't have the same hesitation I do now. I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would go on a rampage if murder was only a $50 fine.
And yeah pretty much punishment is the only reason I never steal.
Problem with the ID solved. If you want an ID good enough for flying you can now go get one starting at the end of August.
However, I think Oldschool was misinformed. According to this article it's going to take the Missouri Dept of Revenue as much as TWO YEARS to be able to produce proper drivers licenses. Sheesh.
That means it only have taken our backwards assed legislature 14 years to bring Missouri into compliance.
Thanks, fellas. Nice job all around down there in Jeff City. Of course I'm quite sure that the most important thing on their agenda from 2008 thru 2016 was to whine constantly about Obama. They were far too busy to actually take care of this important piece of security.
I also love how Missouri's conservatives think you need all manner of ID to vote, but when it comes to standardizing those ID's among the states for security purposes related to air travel or entering federal facilities, it's a bad idea. Great logic there.
Posting a comment requires free registration: