Flying somewhere? You may finally need that Real ID
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
My dream is that the government abolishes the TSA and we return to pre-9/11 security. Recently, this was proposed in Congress. [1]
[1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/118...
That’s bothered me about so much airport (and elsewhere) security after Sept 11… few of the new rules would have prevented the disaster that triggered them.
So now everything is a constant hassle / expense, and seem to prevent nothing.
This doesn't sound possible to me. Do you have a source?
It's such a bad joke.
A few years ago I went through an airport that had a dog checking everyone. The handler was struggling to get the dog to do his job, people were not being checked, dog / puppy just wanted to play.
Once there was a woman in front of me who asked why we take our shoes off and the response was "Once someone put a bomb in there shoes."
1. I don't love remedies to problems that happened once.
2. We had an international pandemic once... by your logic shouldn't we always mask at the airport?
Post-pandemic it's become a highly political thing now and depending on where your at you may get some unfriendly looks.
The real id, would not have done anything.
My point being a key 9/11 inspired law would not prevent even the event that inspired it, even in theory.
So again, what specific gun control laws would actually make a difference that aren’t already on the books?
> Most gun control attempts that I see would at least in theory possibly prevented the tragedy that inspired them.
…yet when asked about specifics, they declined to provide any. So they did in fact dodge my question.
The point that they are making is that this 9/11-inspired law would not have, even in theory if one assumes perfect enforcement, prevented 9/11. They are saying that they can conceive of gun control laws that would have, in theory if one assumes perfect enforcement, prevented 9/11. Coming up with a specific intention of such is not relevant to their point.
I’ll answer your question to hopefully illustrate the point: no guns in US airports. That law, in theory, at least would have had a chance of preventing the attack, which is not something that can be said about this one.
Also remember that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. So please keep your proposal constitutional.
That's not clear-cut. The language of the amendment is more nuanced than that, and the interpretation you're using is a modern one. In the not-so-distant past, it was interpreted as meaning that states could have well-regulated armed citizen militias, not that everyone has a right to carry a firearm.
It is the final check and balance against a tyrannical government.
Well, I disagree. However, this underlines that the issue isn't so easy. It's one of several areas where the constitution isn't nearly clear enough in its meaning and can be reasonably interpreted in contradictory ways. That's the very essence of not being clear-cut.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson
“The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” -James Madison
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton
https://quotesanity.com/quotes-from-founding-fathers-of-the-...
By most estimates we have more guns than people in this country and a not insignificant amount of people would refuse to willingly turn over their firearms to the government. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.
Also, how would you account for the increased violent crime rate due to average citizens being unable to defend themselves against armed criminals?
Additionally, how would you propose that we the people keep our government from becoming tyrannical in the absence of our right to bear arms? It seems particularly absurd to give up our right to firearms when so many people are expecting our current president to become a tyrannical, fascist dictator.
Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.
The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
Banning them doesn’t get rid of them. As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
> Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.
As a corollary to my previous point. Criminals will still have guns because they are criminals and they don’t have any respect for the law. They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed.
> The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed? You greatly underestimate how afraid the elites are of an armed populace.
Check historical instances of gun bans. They don’t line up with this assertion.
> They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed.
Check historical instances of gun bans. They don’t line up with this assertion.
> What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed?
The same thing that prevents this in countries with gun bans.
Contrast that to urban areas where extensive gun control laws are in place. The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.
We are not Western Europe or Australia.
Also, like I said in another comment, guns are everywhere here and that toothpaste is already out of the tube. Most guns are not registered. No one knows for certain how many there are and who owns them. There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people. Even law enforcement and large swaths of the military are unlikely to cooperate with confiscation efforts.
Citation needed. Per capita, those in rural areas are more likely to die from suicide by gun than urbanites from gun homicide. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/280...
> The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.
Citation needed. Where have gun bans failed and why? Mexico, central, and South America, primarily because it’s so easy to obtain weapons in the U.S. and smuggle them down.
> There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people.
Citation needed. There are absolutely nut jobs that won’t follow the law, but that’s true of any law. The solution isn’t to not pass laws. These folks will be dealt with like any other criminal.
You make a lot of assertions that seem to stand up to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny. You don’t back any of it up with any data.
I also hold a valid driver license despite not owning a vehicle (I do rent once every few months.)
When I lost my wallet 3 years ago, I ordered a replacement online; it promptly arrived without the Travel ID designation. So I quickly decided that this was my opportunity to upgrade it (my passport would eventually expire naturally) and they required me to show up in person in order to obtain that Travel ID-enabled document.
The DMV is a lot easier in modern times because of several aspects: third-party service (although these are for the poor and suckers in bad neighborhoods), appointments to bypass “take a number” or long queues, and plenty of online service if you’re tech-savvy.
Last week I replaced my license again, with the .gov website service portal, and skipped the in-person appearance entirely, except a phone call and manual agent intervention was required due to some sort of bug/glitch in their backend.
My state has also implemented a very robust Mobile ID program, although the reader equipment is slow on limited deployment and you’re still legally required to carry the physical document anyway.
Without knowing, my take is that it's one of those cases where each state has behaved more like individual countries, rather than a subdivision of a larger nation. So you drivers licens isn't really worth much out of state, at least not for validating your actual identity.
I could be wrong, it seems very unclear what Real ID actually is.
* provide an identity document that's hard to forge. Some states, Hawaii famously, had IDs that were ridiculously easy to forge.
* reduce expiration times so that identifying details aren't decades out of date. Some states (e.g. Arizona) issued IDs with 50+ years of validity.
* require actual verification of identity at issuance
* include SSN details. I have no idea why this was a thing and it's since been removed from the actual federal requirements, but most states require original social security documents to be provided during application.
* to establish residency at a particular address.
If it were just identity and residency, states would accept things like voter registration as sufficient. Yet many states (e.g. California) do not.
Not sure what proof of voter registration would look like here though. Proof of resident address can actually be non-trivial for a lot of even housed people. I probably have some online bills and statements but would have to dig them up.
Some states also don't like accepting online bills. That's the reason I wasn't able to ever get one in CA.
Until someone decided that only people over 21 could drink, and that we needed strong controls over ID. And most people had drivers licenses, so that is what they said they would need for a document
I think I priced it out and getting a passport card should have less fees than getting a Real ID here. But then I didn't get around to getting a passport card; I'll just use my full passport for flying and keep my Unreal ID.
Personally, I'm surprised this deadline hasn't been pushed back yet, given that every other deadline has been pushed back, and the original plan was 2008(!)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/pres...
That's my approach, since I keep a current passport I'll just carry that if I need to fly, and get the Real ID the next time my license expires in a few years.
It's also nice on international trips as proof of U.S. citizenship (though you'll usually need your book at border crossings)
>Don’t Have Your Acceptable ID?
>In the event you arrive at the airport without acceptable identification (whether lost, stolen, or otherwise), you may still be allowed to fly.
>The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name and current address to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint, where you may be subject to additional screening.
>You will not be allowed to enter the security checkpoint if you choose to not provide acceptable identification, you decline to cooperate with the identity verification process, or your identity cannot be confirmed.
>TSA recommends individuals without acceptable identification arrive at least three hours in advance of their flight time.
But that was completely unintentional. I'd never intentionally try to fly when I don't have the required ID.