[Spktyr]

Turns out the guy doesn't drive.

So, basically, he's saying he's trapped in his home area because he's too stupid to get a car and a license for it (which does not require a government ID to get). Nice.

I agree with him about presenting ID to fly, but I understand the logic behind that, especially after 9/11. That said, flying is *not* a right, and there are many other means of transport across the country that do not require an ID. Buses, trains, private car, etc., etc.

[bdfromlv]

I dont know about califas rules but in kansas and missouri you need a social security card and original (with raised seal) birth certificate. to get your drivers licence.

[Mark was here]

So, basically, he's saying he's trapped in his home area because he's too stupid to get a car and a license for it (which does not require a government ID to get).

From the Article:

Gilmore has epilepsy, and because of that his driver's license was suspended five years ago. He decided not to reapply because it is now easier, when asked for a photo ID, to be able to say forthrightly that he has none.

[exnavychick]

So, basically, he's saying he's trapped in his home area because he's too stupid to get a car and a license for it (which does not require a government ID to get). Nice.

1)He cannot get a license, apparently, due to his epilepsy. He could, however, get an ID card. That doesn't make him "stupid" per se, just stubborn.

2)A notarized birth certificate, a passport, state ID card, driver's permit, or military ID are generally required in order to get a license...at least in the states that I have lived in. I do believe at least some of those count as a kind of government ID. (This is in addition to a utility bill, ect. with your name and address on it or something like that to prove your residence in the state you are applying for a license in.)

I'm not saying I disagree with doing any of this (how else are you supposed to prove that you are eligible for a driver's license?

[stylin19a]

article says "... and cannot fly inside the United States. Nor can he ride Amtrak, rent a room at most major hotels, or easily clear security in the courthouses where his case..."

The guy's worth a bazillion bucks. I'm thinking he could hire limos,buy his own airplane etc... to circumvent some of the ID requirements.

He's making a point for all of us.

[hinckley buzzard]

I'm glad for this stooge that he is rich. It's a lot easier to be a rich A-hole than a poor one.

[jjmcgo]

People with epilepsy aren't stupid. He doesn't drive because he has epilepsy, thus he doesn't need a driver's license.

[Old Professer]

It might be better if you read the whole article before weighing in, the man has epilepsy which precludes the issuance of a driver's license based on the state's judgement of public safety.

[KeepUSfree]

As usual...attacking when clueless. He cannot drive due to epilepsy (you'd know this if you actually read the article). And, you may not mind licking your masters boots and giving up your god-given rights ...but , fortunately for both me and you, this man does. And, all he wants is to "see the law". Show him the law, he'll show the ID. But, he has the balls and brains to stand up to a tyrannical system and say FU.
Good for him. I am always amazed when Freepers embrace tyranny.

[tahiti]

"That said, flying is *not* a right,"

Let's analyze this remark.

If the "public" owns the airlines, then yes it would be a right.

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people."

But since the airlines are not owned by the "public,"v you are correct, "flying is not a right."

But where in the constitution does our government get the jurisdiction or the power to order a private property owner from denying a fellow citizen from being invited on or in their property with or without a weapon? Or to search them, by a government employee, with out a warrant or probable cause?

Some would say the power emeanates from the "commerce clause."

Well that is interesting because the commerce clause states "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

When and how did an airline become a "foreign nation(s); a "several state(s)" or an "Indian tribe(s)?"

The Bill of Rights was intended and is meant to "limit" government from denying and disparaging rights.

The airlines, being private property owners and their passengers can exert their rights protected by Amendment II, IV, V, and IX.

The airlines are free to allow or disallow anyone they wish to, for any reason, at any time, from being invited onto their private property.

Your government is not.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

I don't fly, and was mildly entertaining the thought of taking Amtrak. You now need current ID. I don't know about Greyhound.

[Hostage]

... but I understand the logic behind that, especially after 9/11.

Actually I don't understand the logic behind it and I don't understand how you or anyone else can understand the logic behind it.

The 9/11 terrorists all had driver's lecenses that were obtained legally.

What the terrorists did not have was an expectation that they would be opposed by Sky Marshals or that their luggage and carry-ons would be scanned to reveal the boxcutters they were carrying.

I am a loss to understand why our government doesn't rely on scanning and air marshals to preempt an in-air attack by terrorists.

The whole business of background checks on the citizenry reeks of intrusion and Big-Brother projection. It is surely more expensive to build an IT inrastructure for monitoring the population than it is to fund and train expert scanners and air marshals.

The background checking does not make me feel safer.