"Real ID" Update

[kemasa]

The powers that be are trying to figure out how to unscrew the pooch for legal citizens using new ab60 marked ids to purchase firearms.

You sure about that? It seems to me they are trying to remove the difference between illegal alien licenses. The problems with firearm purchases is just an added bonus.

[taperxz]

Only by DOJ fiat, not by the letter of the law.

[Nardo1895]

I was thinking that there would be three:

1. Real ID
2. AB60 CDL; "Federal Limits Apply" front and back
3. Non-Real, Non AB60 CDL; "Federal Limits Apply" front, but not back.

I made this assumption based on the policy I mentioned a few posts ago. But in further reflection, that makes no sense. I can't see DMV doing #3 in which case the policy adopted by the local FFL won't work for anyone without a Real ID. I wonder if they realize that.

[broadside]

Letter of what law?

Letter of what law?

One is a DL only. Then there is the Real ID DL

Basically, everyone gets a illegal alien DL until I, a native Californian, goes into DMV to prove to them that I am in fact a US citizen, have a SS card and proof of where I live.

I guess it’s easier than making millions of illegals admit they’re illegals.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=16400.

16400.
As used in this part, “clear evidence of the person’s identity and age” means either of the following:

(a) A valid California driver’s license.

(b) A valid California identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

(Added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. (SB 1080) Effective January 1, 2011. Operative January 1, 2012, by Sec. 10 of Ch. 711.)

It says DRIVERS LICENSE right on the top of it and it was issued by the state.

DOJ has bulletins that CA FFL's must acknowledge they read.
Including the one that said do not accept AB-60 licenses.

Again, by fiat, not by the letter of the law. Legislating via regulation.

I get FFLs not wanting to lose their licenses/permits, getting fined, etc. But the law is the law and DOJ regulating beyond the law is not right.

[BONECUTTER]

I get FFLs not wanting to lose their licenses/permits, getting fined, etc. But the law is the law and DOJ regulating beyond the law is not right.

Hence why I used the C&R license example.
It doesn't matter if they are wrong.

[Nardo1895]

Federal Limits is also on the back.



Real IDs don't have the first sentence.

[Nardo1895]

Image didn't work. Trying again.

[taperxz]

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=16400.





It says DRIVERS LICENSE right on the top of it and it was issued by the state.



Again, by fiat, not by the letter of the law. Legislating via regulation.

I get FFLs not wanting to lose their licenses/permits, getting fined, etc. But the law is the law and DOJ regulating beyond the law is not right.

You are missing the entire concept of the law. The law you point out was prior to a bugus license being issued in the first place. The feds will NOW take it because they don't care to fight the issue. They want to put the onus on CA as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

Remember, ATF is now under Donald Trump. Its a battle between him and the State of California. The feds don't like illegals and the state doesn't like guns.

[kemasa]

Btw, I was told that other states might not accept an ab60 license or even a federal limits apply license for driving in that state.

[REH]

Just got off the phone with DES rep. NO was the answer to accepting Federal Limits Apply license.

[ugimports]

Just got off the phone with DES rep. NO was the answer to accepting Federal Limits Apply license.

Lucky for Turners they must have gotten a waiver. In a different thread someone sad they were accepting them. It's all well and good until it's not!

[broadside]

You are missing the entire concept of the law. The law you point out was prior to a bugus license being issued in the first place. The feds will NOW take it because they don't care to fight the issue. They want to put the onus on CA as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

Remember, ATF is now under Donald Trump. Its a battle between him and the State of California. The feds don't like illegals and the state doesn't like guns.

I am not missing anything. PC 16400 says what is acceptable. The DOJ has CHOSEN to ignore that and issue regulation that is contrary to what the law says.

It does not matter if 16400 was written prior to the RealID act. If they didn't want to accept non-RealID licenses as part of that Act, then they should have updated 16400,but they did not. RealID Act, as far as I know, does not change the definition of "valid California drivers license", which is what 16400 requires as acceptable ID.

So again, it is the DOJ regulation, not the PC, that is prohibiting non-RealID being used.

[kemasa]

It says DRIVERS LICENSE right on the top of it and it was issued by the state.

Ok, but the law that was posted says "driver's license" and the photo shows it as "driver license", so if you want to follow the law exactly it doesn't match and therefore can't be used.

Also, it doesn't say "drivers license" as you claimed, but instead "driver license".

[broadside]

Ok, but the law that was posted says "driver's license" and the photo shows it as "driver license", so if you want to follow the law exactly it doesn't match and therefore can't be used.

Also, it doesn't say "drivers license" as you claimed, but instead "driver license".

Then no license has ever worked as my 3 year old pre-RealID license also does not include the "s" after driver either.

[kemasa]

Then no license has ever worked as my 3 year old pre-RealID license also does not include the "s" after driver either.

Perhaps, but it also could mean that they have just allowed additional means. It has worked in the past though as shown by all the completed DROS. It doesn't mean that they have to accept other things not mentioned in the law.