Lots of assumptions here. Let's start with the first: that the driver's licenses are legitimately a function of government. Second, that, as referenced here, a "motor vehicle" might not mean [legally] what you think it does. Third, even if it is a possible legitimate function of government, it might not be used appropriately (e.g. standing armies).
Secondly, even if it is a law, it might not be a legitimate one. I'm living in SD and the state Constitution is clear "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.", and yet there's a whole chapter dealing with what arms [or the bearing thereof] are unlawful.
Given the above, do you think it's right to jump off the deep end and call him a prick?
Yes, I do. See my post 93. I don’t care about his lying 70 years ago. It’s what he’s doing today that I have a problem with.