Politics Rant

Colorado Driver’s License == National ID Card

My Montana vehicle tags expire at the end of this month. In the interest of neatly compartmentalizing official Colorado residency duties, I decided I should also get a Colorado driver’s license around the same time I get Colorado plates. Thus, I headed to the Colorado DMV website to learn what I should bring with me. From its driver’s license FAQ:

To apply for a license, instructional permit or duplicate, you must:

  1. Submit 2 primary forms of identification. One form must establish lawful presence. Please see FAQ #1 for a complete list of acceptable identification documents.
  2. Provide your Social Security Number.
  3. Supply a Colorado residence address.
  4. Pass all required examinations (written, vision and road performance).
  5. Pay the required fee.
  6. Be fingerprinted and photographed.

The emphasis above was mine. So, um, I have to be fingerprinted to get my CO driver’s license?!

Refusing to believe that the website information was correct, I called my local DL office. They confirmed that one digital fingerprint was taken for “security purposes.” In other words, if someone came in to get a license claiming to be me, they couldn’t if their fingerprint didn’t match. Hmmm, for my security then? I was skeptical. As my local DL Office rep could give me no information as to where the information goes and what government agencies have access to it, I placed a call to the Colorado State Driver’s License Administration office. On my second customer rep, I struck upon useful though dubious information: Colorado is a “central issue” state. This means that once I apply for a driver’s license, my information is sent to the federal government in DC, it goes into their database, then my license is sent back to me. So for a recap:

Even though I am not a criminal, my fingerprints are now forevermore in a governmental database for no reason other than that I moved and wanted to get a new driver’s license.

This is a result of the Real ID Act which was passed because of its connection to a military spending bill (another topic of contention). The Act, besides violating my privacy, hands even more power to the inauspicious Department of Homeland Security.

So, what do I do in the meantime? Wait (my Montana license is good until 2012) until the ACLU has a chance to mount legal opposition to the bill? If I get my DL now and the Act is overturned, my information is still sitting out in a database. Realistically, I doubt that I really have any other option than getting a DL and being fingerprinted.

As part of the bigger picture, this legislation scares me. How much are we willing to give up for some perceived measure of security? Is living in a police state a price we’re willing to pay to “be secure.” Also, history shows us not to trust our government unconditionally, so why now are people so willing to give up civil liberties? Government officials didn’t suddenly get more trustworthy.

As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Does anyone know the official status of the Real ID Act? Has the ACLU taken any steps to overturn it or test its legality? Can I refuse to give a fingerprint?

25 replies on “Colorado Driver’s License == National ID Card”

I don’t understand democrats sometimes. You guys have been beaten into submission by the ACLU and a liberal culture which has somehow convinced you that they sky is falling because god is throwing heavy objects at you personally.

I understand if your a career criminal why you would not want to be fingerprinted — but one of a sovereign’s nations duties is to protect its citizens — seemingly thats all there trying to do.

If you Nicole Swan — are running around killing people and they can somehow lift your fingerprint off a crime scene and its a direct match to your fingerprint on file, then there is a whole set of accompanying information and a jury convicts you — the system worked.

The judicial system which our government is based on works BEST when evidence is present.

Let me toss this scenario at you — some day a woman is robbed at gunpoint by a sassy and sexy female software engineer. Somehow all the scenario works out that you, Nicole Swan, were in the right place at the right time and you do not have an alibi. The jury uses all the information at hand and returns a guilty verdict after much deliberation.

Had there been a database of fingerprints the prosecuting detectives on the case may have found the actual criminal — not you.

What I’m saying is that this database is as much in DEFENSE of you as it also is there to help CONVICT you.

Don’t hide from facts, information and the truth.

Actually, Mr. Webster, I’m a libertarian. Also, since when was protection of civil liberties deemed a “liberal” cause? Republicans have traditionally been in favor of less government intrusion, yet now the exact opposite seems to be true.

You apparently have a belief in the benevolence of our federal government. I applaud you for your unfailing support. However, history gives many examples in which this isn’t true. Take McCarthyism, for example. Many, many normal, innocent citizens were imprisoned, blacklisted, or denied employment because of their supposed connection to Communism and the security danger that supposed connection posed. Does the situation sound familiar?

I hate to trot out such an oft-quoted phrase but it is quite suitable in this situation: Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Bottomline: I’m not a criminal, so the government has no right to treat me as one. That’s part of our legal system as well.

“Had there been a database of fingerprints the prosecuting detectives on the case may have found the actual criminal — not you” Because, you know, the police wouldn’t even consider taking a suspects fingerprints to see if they match the ones at the crime scene. If Nicole was a criminal suspect I expect she’d be perfectly happy to let them fingerprint her… because that’s a legitimate reason to.

Fingerprinting to get your drivers’ license? No. Hell no. How is that protecting her? If someone was going in to get a drivers’ license in her name in the first place, it’d be their fingerprints on the card, and their picture, not hers.

Citizens of the United States are not required to carry around documentation which they must present to anyone at any time. A drivers’ license is your legal proof that you have passed your states minimum requirements to be allowed to operate a potentially dangerous machine. It should be no more than that. A photograph allows a quick check to see if the individual on the license is the individual *with* the license, in the event that the driver of the vehicle is operating it in an unsafe manner. A fingerprint is total overkill for the purpose of the document.

JC, you make an excellent point that I failed to include in my initial post — it’s a frickin’ driver’s license! As you state, a driver’s license is to prove that I have passed the minimum requirements necessary to operate a standard motor vehicle. It’s not a “I’m not a terrorist” card.

Eric – This has nothing to do with political party affiliation. It has everything to do with too much government. The balance between the people and the government has been seriously tipped in favor of the government in the last 70 years, with huge gains made in the 30s and following septermber 11th.

JC – exactly. cars are 2000+lbs objects that travel at 65+mph. Licences are a way to separate those who are physically able to, and will keep themselves and other as safe as possible when driving these death traps. Don’t get me wrong. I love driving. I love driving fast. But that doesn’t change what it is.

Government ID ? I don’t think it’s appropriate. We don’t live in Germany in the 30s or early 40s. We don’t need “Where are your papers? show us your papers.” We don’t need documentation on us at all times. We need a licence to drive a car. We don’t need keep papers on us to stay a valid citizen.

I’m not a democrat. I’m not a republican. I’m not affiliated with any party. So don’t be hatin’


Clearly there is no valid connection between your DL and the NID card. As I am sure you know it is part of a much larger agenda. I – like yourself have watched this country transform over the last decade and have some serious concerns over our civil liberties and I believe this next year will hold the answers to just how far ignorance vs. awareness will play out. I do not believe all we have fought for can be lost to simple blind submission, even though there appears to be a lot of it! My faith in awareness comes in the light of the Internet. No time in history have we all been so connected? Just think of the French underground with their short wave radios defying the Germans to the end. Hey! I believe that would make a great website. The French Underground! I mean as long as history is repeating itself i.e. (Iraq,Iran), (Poland, France). Check out. ZEITGEIST, The Movie – Official Release – Full Film.


As time ticks on, it appears to me that this truth movement has lost its momentum/direction. Yes, I agree that people discussing these issues and events are indeed, a great thing but what end has all of this actually reached? I am very much in support of the truth movement, as a preface, but after all the talk and debate, what’s next, what do we hope to accomplish? A few questions:
a) With all the video’s, websites, public /private discussions; Beside the obvious spreading of awareness/information what has been gained? So 90% of the population believes 911 was an inside job and doesn’t support the war in Iraq (and probably soon to be Iran. Take the current Strait of Hormuz incident as being very similar to the Gulf of Tonkin lie, this of course comes after the Iranian WMD claims/threats. We are lied to over and over, but people don’t seem to care enough to take action.
b) What good is voting if everyone running for election is from the same cloth? Yes, we can all see mass media is controlled by corporations that want to serve their own interests, so why buy into this dog and pony show? No matter what happens, as you can see every party will claim ‘vote fraud’ and the absence of trust for the electoral process grows. What does this all leave us with, no matter who we have as our next president, do any of us really expect any change? The oligarchy that is our current/true system will not change, just the puppet sitting at the desk in the Oval Office.
c) Key figures in the Truth Movement, Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, Webster Tarpley, Jim Marrs, etc. all have done a lot of work and a great job in getting the word out about Fema camps and Gunderson Prisoner Boxcars, as well as REAL ID CARDS but now that we know, what do we do with this information? Lets say that 100% of the American populous is on the side of the Truth Movement… what does this equate to? There are mock tea parties and executive orders making these protest illegal. I can go on and on about the Patriot Act, wire taps and loss of Habeas Corpus, the Geneva Convention, CIA Black Sites, Americans accepting torture, but where does all this talk get us? I’m not promoting riots, or revolution here … but what does the Truth Movement hope to gain? We all know that the Gov. is corrupt what do we hope to do about it, what can we do about it? It seems to me, this another control mechanisms. Google some of the things I have mentioned above, tie this all together .. and you will probably reach the same conclusion myself and many of my friends have; That the American Dream is becoming a nightmare. Now ISP want to control what’s accessible on the Internet, this was mentioned a the last CES, Google it. Why do they want to control the information on the Internet, for your security. Soon, we may not be able to have these conversations. Then what? Then we subscribe to the new national duty, spend money we don’t have on credit, the modern form of slavery. There are too many instances of corruption and identifiable acts of dishonesty our Gov. is feeding us as citizens to include in this blog. Do you have a good feeling about the future of our country? …even with the 60% decline in the value of the dollar since Bush became president.

I am a student at Csu i hv all passed all the requirements for my license but the only issue is that im an international student on a scolarship so i can’t work in order to get a social security number!!! would that be a problem? where should i go?

I am so glad I’m not the only one concerned about this National ID Card. I have been a Republican for many years because I believe in the motto, laissez-faire, (the LESS Government the BETTER) this new bill by the Republicans is an outrage and I plan to do my part to fight it.
You should all check out Arron Russo’s “America Freedom to Fascism” documentary, which was just recently on PBS.
It raises some good questions about the National ID.
Have a lovely day!

I recently moved to Colorado from New York. I put off getting a CO license for quite a while basically out of laziness and unwillingness to wait at the DMV. I finally did go last week and could not believe it when they asked for my finger print. What was worse was the speech I’m sure they are instructed to spit out when someone refuses (which I did) about how it’s for my protection and most importantly… What am I trying to hide from?? Hmm… I think it’s fascism I’m hiding from.

I am seriously outraged at this. This is the most unAmerican thing I’ve seen in my life. The fact that they are linking it to safety and freedom to “sell” this abomination just makes me sick.

Here’s another fun little tidbit, though unrelated: When I first arrived in Denver, I took some time to walk around the city and decided to get out my camera to take a nice picture of the skyline from the overpass of Federal over Colfax. This was in the evening, to get the cliche night time city shot. Within 10 minutes of setting up my tripod, I had a police cruiser pull over, demand my ID and they TOOK my camera. While one reviewed the photos I had taken the other explained to me that since the DNC was coming in 6 months they were afforded special security rights. They returned my camera after viewing all 200+ shots on it.

They both strait up told me that by law I had to provide them my ID. I gave them my ID to speed things up, but I did tell them that the law is actually quite the opposite and that they were very much misleading, if not lying earlier. I got the typical response “Oh what are you… a LAWYER??” They also tried to tell me they could search my bag but wouldn’t since I gave them my ID which was clean (Gee thanks guys).

After much discussion with them about digital cameras and of course my liberties the basic justification they gave me treating me the way the did was this: Photography is suspicious activity

I too recently changed from a MT to a CO drivers license. I too was surprised by the request for a fingerprint, but…

I’m even MORE shocked at my reaction: I complied, no questions asked!

I KNOW better than that and I’m a Better PATRIOTIC CITIZEN than that!

Found your blog when I was searching google regarding getting fingerprinted for a CO DL…I was as shocked as you are! My boyfriend has to get one for his residency requirement for CSU, but I think I’ll hold off, so I don’t have to get fingerprinted.
I always am shocked (though I shouldn’t be, anymore) when people get MAD at you for knowing and asserting your rights (like the “Why, do you have something to hide?” that people get at the DMV). I feel like people are purposely not taught about what their rights really are (in high school civics classes, for example). Why should I have to have something to hide to want my privacy? Web’s argument is completely pointless, because the police officers could/would take the fingerprints if someone was thought to be involved in a crime and there was a fingerprint from the scene that they could compare the suspect’s to — anyone who has seen an episode of Law and Order can figure that out. Nice try. There is no way that I can think of to preemptively collect personal information such as fingerprints. Its just not necessary!
I have noticed since moving to Colorado that there are a LOT of laws requiring citizens to prove their identity at every turn. We had our driver’s license photocopied to just look at an apartment! People spend way too much time being paranoid that someone is going to take advantage of the FANTASTIC (/sarcasm) benefits of being a citizen of the US.

Thanks for stopping by everyone. This post remains one of my most popular, so it seems a lot of people care about this issue. Unfortunately, nothing seems to be moving on this issue, thus I continue to use my MT driver’s license.

Taking fingerprints like this violates your 4th amendment rights!

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] – ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’

The gathering of fingerprint evidence from ‘free persons’ constitutes a sufficiently significant interference with individual expectations of privacy that law enforcement officials are required to demonstrate that they have probable cause, or at least an articulable suspicion, to believe that the person committed a criminal offense and that the fingerprinting will establish or negate the person’s connection to the offense. See Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 813-18 (’85); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-28 (’69).

‘Fingerprinting’ – like the compelled production of other aspects of an individual’s identification that are routinely exposed to and superficially observable by the public at large, such as voice prints, handwriting exemplars, and photographs – simply belongs to a different category of search that ‘represents a much less serious intrusion upon personal security than other types of searches and detentions.’ Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 14 (’85).*fn10 The majority’s analysis obliterates this critical constitutional distinction between coerced fingerprinting and blood extraction for DNA genetic pattern analysis.

Fourth Amendment protects the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even though the intrusion undoubtedly would result in an enormous boon to the public if the efficient apprehension of criminals were the sole criterion to be considered. ‘The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take.’ Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting).

Old discussion here but I think my experience today is relevant. CO used to provide you with your photo license on the spot, now the informaiton is sent out of state and your license is mailed to you in about 10 days. Why do they send the info out of state? I asked the clerk today, and the reply was that your digital photo is copied into a database along with your DL info and used in facial pattern recognition software. That’s right get a driver’s license and any surveillance camera linked into the government database can ID you. Since driving is a privilege, not a right, the issuing authority can have you submit to any requirements they wish.
I felt sick when she told me that. She shrugged her shoulders and said that things are different ever since 9/11. And I thought living in perpetual fear was letting the terrorists win…

Sean I think that you are uniformed about your rights!

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that” driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license”. Some of these cases are:

Case # 1 – “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. – Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
(“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 – “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court
decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 – “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” – Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 – “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.


As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of

Government, in requiring the people to file for “drivers Licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are “restricting”, and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of “Citizens right to travel.” In an interview a spokesmen stated: “Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the “right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways” is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen.”

This means that the “beliefs and opinions” our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that – to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding “commerce” which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those
freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e – it is Unlawful.


The first of such questions may very well be – If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as – licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle
inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?

For the answer to this question let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.

The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: “The State cannot diminish rights of the people.”

“the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point – that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Limitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed “converting a Right into a crime”.)

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- “Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason”? (Such as in this particular case – when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).

The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;.shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding”. (This tells us that the U.S.
Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Laws that are in opposition to it.)

In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”. – ART. 6 U.S. CONST.

We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are “Executive Officers”.

Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, – the U. S. Constitution.

In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here’s an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the “letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this
places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are – #1 – by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 – by a person knowingly waiving a
particular right.

Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel “unrestricted” upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and “sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law,” and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

#1 – Any citizen that involves themselves in “commerce,” (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

“…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…” – State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the “right” of the citizen to travel and a government “privilege” are – Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12
So.2d 784.

There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for themselves. (See last page for additional references).

#2 – The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel “unregulated and unrestricted” by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state – drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words “by contract only”.)

We should remember what makes this “legal,” and not a violation of the individual’s common law right to travel “unrestricted” is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were
forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the States powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it
was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between “Privileges vs. Rights”. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. “laws of no effect”. In other words – “LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL.”


An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supercede all other laws in our nation, – the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer’s state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer’s duty is to “uphold the U.S. Constitution.”

What does this mean to the “patrol officer” who will be the only sworn “Executive Officer” on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision affects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)

Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that “sworn officer” to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, – “the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office” and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT’S THE LAW!

Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, “SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS.” Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to
be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.

As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it’s unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so…let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official “violating” or “upholding” their oath of office, those that would side with the “violation” should inevitable lose.

Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for “expedients sake,” or behind the guise, “for the safety and welfare of the masses,” ignore people’s rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like – “Freedom is not free!”

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to “mandatory licensing, registration and insurance” – verses – “the right of the people to travel unencumbered”:


And as we have seen, “traveling freely,” going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

Yay for you for not getting a license. 🙂 Glad to see someone whose disagreement matches their actions these days.

I thankfully don’t go through this – I walk or do public transport most places, and haven’t really ever owned a car (personal preference).

This is not an issue of this goverment or this particular case, or who is in power at the moment – it’s an issue of being able to live.

I don’t have any reason to have to trust details of my life to other people just because I happen to exist and have been born in this world.

You do not need someone’s -permission- to live. Not wanting to give out your personal information is the right to say, “I don’t trust my person al information out places where people I don’t know or will ever meet have access to it.”

I’d ask the idiots who actually spout that nonsense at the office what kind of lives they live, because they must pretty small, weak people who don’t think for themselves when they can avoid it and only live they way they do because someone else accepts it.

Other people do not get to judge or have access to details of your life they would not otherwise have except by intruding against your privacy and will. Or ask that you blanket trust them under any circumstances. This is worse than breaking into your house. This is breaking into your house and and asking if you would please be so kind to give a stranger who claims to have good intent a fingerprint… because you must be criminal and trying to hide something otherwise.. ludicrous.

The sole purpose of many intrusions of privacy is to indict a judgement on you anyway. In a world where our lives are dominated by people who these days can call you unsound of mind and lock you up (race/gender discriminmation, everyone? Haven’t we already been through centuries where we discriminated upon people because their lives were different from the accepted or understandable?) for any fucking reason they bloody want, I do not feel safe giving my information out. Nor would I if this were a different place. It’s not necessary by any means.

You could sooner and better identify people using chips and telescreens and having photographs of them from 13,924 angles in perfect digital reconstruct.

But that’s bullshit. More of “We get to judge your life and call it what we want ..on your terms. ..then arrest you for it …on our terms.”

I highly disrespect the police, lawmakers, judges, and people of authority in this country and pretty much anywhere. You can bet they didn’t get there because they were good at actually doing the real job, or even particularly clearheaded, good people.

The power and methods for this to happen should not be there in the first place.

Thanks for stopping by Anonymous – great comments. I’m still holding out, but the expiration date of my Montana license is quickly approaching. At some point, if I want to validly drive in Colorado, I will have to submit to this invasion of my privacy. Sadly, no strong opposition to these laws has yet been mounted.

I HAD to get my CO license renewed today. I am absolutely furious. They have NO RIGHT to force people to leave a finger print or not be able to renew their driver’s license. This is unconstitutional!! I told the manager at the DMV that fingerprinting was unconstitutional. His response was, “I’m sorry that’s your opinion. You either have to give the finger print or we can’t issue you a license.” This country is becoming a goddamn police state. I was the only one in the room who complained. They rest of the lemmings remained silent and bent over willingly. Did the goddamn settlers need to be finger printed and protected to cross the goddamn plains and Continental Divide in covered wagons to settle this country? I’ll tell you another little ditty, I met with the Douglas County Commissioner last week, he informed me that they have 360 degree aerial photos of every house and structure in the county. They have photos of your house from every goddamn angle. And then there are the full body scan machines at the airport and the court house. Don’t be so stupid as to think that big brother is not taking over and is ready to control every aspect of your life. Study your history and look at what happened in Russia in the 1930’s. The Russian government starved its people to death until they submitted. This kind of tyranny is slow and systematic so that the people don’t notice and don’t fight back. This is why revolutions eventually occur.

So, what are our viable options? No license, license in another state without a finger print requirement. I am surprised there is no waiver or other loophole. Do you suppose our legislature, or executives submit themselves to state DMV finger printing. I would be surprised.

I have not been able to read all of your comments, but, like many of you, the minute I saw that I was going to be required to give a fingerprint,I asked “Why?” I have committed no crime. They had a sign up saying “we don’t make the rules;so don’t complain to us”, but all they could say was that it had to do with ‘security’, and couldn’t explain beyond that. I have never been fingerprinted, but have friends who tell me they have when they open an account at a credit union or bank, What for?

I was reading your issues over being fingerprinted through the DL bureau. I to don’t like my privacy being invaded by the government but my question to you is, if they actually made a National Database with these prints would more people who are killed and unidentified be identified through the database? The government has all these databases such as NCIC, MILITARY and even a database for Tattoos for inmates in prison.

I agree 100% it is in unconstitutional to require you give finerprints and no facial recognition photos just to drive! I am wondering if you can decline this myself. It’s unbelievable. Libertarian here.

Comments are closed.