TSA training requirements for CFIs

[TRA]

I've looked at government documents about the TSA recurrent
CFI training until my head hurts. Can anyone summarize what
I need as an independent CFI to show that I've followed
whatever rules there are?

I've taken an online quiz where every other answer is to ask
my non-existent supervisor. I printed out a form that said I
finished the TSA course. I read the
"recurrent_flight_school_module.pdf" document, which seems
to say I've done recurrent training by looking up stuff
about my airport. It seems to have a form that I sign
myself certifying that I've trained myself and a logbook
entry that I make to myself to verify what I just certified
to myself. Can that be right?

What records about my students do I need to keep for the
TSA? I know what the FAA wants.

Is there a good link that explains this that I couldn't
find? Help is gratefully appreciated from anyone who has
figured this out.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
TRA > wrote:
>I've looked at government documents about the TSA recurrent
>CFI training until my head hurts. Can anyone summarize what
>I need as an independent CFI to show that I've followed
>whatever rules there are?
>
>I've taken an online quiz where every other answer is to ask
>my non-existent supervisor. I printed out a form that said I
>finished the TSA course. I read the
>"recurrent_flight_school_module.pdf" document, which seems
>to say I've done recurrent training by looking up stuff
>about my airport. It seems to have a form that I sign
>myself certifying that I've trained myself and a logbook
>entry that I make to myself to verify what I just certified
>to myself. Can that be right?

No, of course not. You missed the most important step. Take the
certificate you printed out, put it in a dime-store frame, and hang it
on your wall. Right between your Junior High School diploma and the
calendar you got from the Chinese take-out place. Now you're done.

My next-door neighbors' 20-something nephew from Demascus just came to
live with them for a couple years while he works on a Master's degree
in computer science. I figure I've fulfilled my recurrent training
requirement by having them all over for a barbeque.

[Robert M. Gary]

TRA wrote:
> What records about my students do I need to keep for the
> TSA? I know what the FAA wants.

Assuming you are a U.S. citizen-only CFI (you would have done more with
the TSA if you were authorized to teach non-citizens) you only need to
keep a copy of their proof of U.S. citizenship (passport) or a log book
endorsement that you validated it.
You are also suppose to know that if anyone asks you for primary,
multi, or instrument training that you need to refer them to a TSA
authorized CFI (or become one yourself). TSA authorized CFIs (like
myself) have a login account with the TSA website and can process
foreign students.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

BTW: Self endorsement is ok for CFIs to certify either their initial
TSA training (the on-line training) or their recurrent training (which
requires meeting the airport manager, etc).

-Robert

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> TRA wrote:
> > What records about my students do I need to keep for the
> > TSA? I know what the FAA wants.
>
> Assuming you are a U.S. citizen-only CFI (you would have done more with
> the TSA if you were authorized to teach non-citizens) you only need to
> keep a copy of their proof of U.S. citizenship (passport) or a log book
> endorsement that you validated it.
> You are also suppose to know that if anyone asks you for primary,
> multi, or instrument training that you need to refer them to a TSA
> authorized CFI (or become one yourself). TSA authorized CFIs (like
> myself) have a login account with the TSA website and can process
> foreign students.
>
> -Robert


You don't need to keep a copy of the proof of citizenship. I certainly
would not let just anyone photocopy my passport. The regs only require
the CFI to check the proof of citizenship and endorse the logbook. If
he chooses not to endorse the logbook (I don't know why anyone
wouldn't), then he has to keep a copy of the student's id (but that
does not have to be the same as proof of citizenship; it could be a
drivers license for instance).

[Robert M. Gary]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > TRA wrote:
> > > What records about my students do I need to keep for the
> > > TSA? I know what the FAA wants.

> You don't need to keep a copy of the proof of citizenship. I certainly
> would not let just anyone photocopy my passport. The regs only require
> the CFI to check the proof of citizenship and endorse the logbook. If
> he chooses not to endorse the logbook (I don't know why anyone
> wouldn't), then he has to keep a copy of the student's id (but that
> does not have to be the same as proof of citizenship; it could be a
> drivers license for instance).

Not according to AOPA
http://www.aopa.org/tsa_rule
"Logbook or Record-keeping Requirements. An instructor must keep a copy
of the documents for five years that are used to prove citizenship or
make an endorsement "
a Driver's license does not prove citzenship.

-robert

[Emily[_1_]]

TRA wrote:
> I've looked at government documents about the TSA recurrent
> CFI training until my head hurts. Can anyone summarize what
> I need as an independent CFI to show that I've followed
> whatever rules there are?
>
> I've taken an online quiz where every other answer is to ask
> my non-existent supervisor. I printed out a form that said I
> finished the TSA course. I read the
> "recurrent_flight_school_module.pdf" document, which seems
> to say I've done recurrent training by looking up stuff
> about my airport. It seems to have a form that I sign
> myself certifying that I've trained myself and a logbook
> entry that I make to myself to verify what I just certified
> to myself. Can that be right?
>
> What records about my students do I need to keep for the
> TSA? I know what the FAA wants.
>
> Is there a good link that explains this that I couldn't
> find? Help is gratefully appreciated from anyone who has
> figured this out.

You beat me to the question. I read the PDF document and had the same
questions. It's painfully obvious that the TSA is pretty clueless when
it comes to independent instructors.

[Emily[_1_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> TRA wrote:
>> What records about my students do I need to keep for the
>> TSA? I know what the FAA wants.
>
> Assuming you are a U.S. citizen-only CFI (you would have done more with
> the TSA if you were authorized to teach non-citizens)
What complete and utter bull****. Does the TSA really think some CFI's
aren't capable of understanding security enough to teach non-citizens?

[Clay]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> BTW: Self endorsement is ok for CFIs to certify either their initial
> TSA training (the on-line training) or their recurrent training (which
> requires meeting the airport manager, etc).
>
> -Robert

Since I fly out of several differnt airports, does that mean I have to
meet with the every airport manager?

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > > TRA wrote:
> > > > What records about my students do I need to keep for the
> > > > TSA? I know what the FAA wants.
>
> > You don't need to keep a copy of the proof of citizenship. I certainly
> > would not let just anyone photocopy my passport. The regs only require
> > the CFI to check the proof of citizenship and endorse the logbook. If
> > he chooses not to endorse the logbook (I don't know why anyone
> > wouldn't), then he has to keep a copy of the student's id (but that
> > does not have to be the same as proof of citizenship; it could be a
> > drivers license for instance).
>
> Not according to AOPA
> http://www.aopa.org/tsa_rule
> "Logbook or Record-keeping Requirements. An instructor must keep a copy
> of the documents for five years that are used to prove citizenship or
> make an endorsement "
> a Driver's license does not prove citzenship.
>
> -robert


You left out the remainder of that sentence, which has an "OR"... Here
is the full version:

An instructor must keep a copy of the documents for five years that are
used to prove citizenship or make an endorsement in both the
instructor's logbook, or other record used by the instructor to record
flight student endorsements, and the student's logbook with the
following:....(endorsement example)

Here is where it further says "OR" keep a copy of student ID.
http://www.aopa.org/tsa_rule/checklist.pdf

[Jose[_1_]]

> An instructor must keep a copy of the documents for five years that are
> used to prove citizenship or make an endorsement in both the
> instructor's logbook, or other record used by the instructor to record
> flight student endorsements, and the student's logbook with the
> following:....(endorsement example)

The sentences are structured poorly (what else do you expect from
lawyers) but I read it thusly (emphasis mine):

An instructor must keep:
a copy of the documents (for five years) that are used to prove citizenship

=OR=

make an endorsement in...

both the instructor's logbook,
(or other record used by the instructor to record flight student
endorsements,)

and the student's logbook

WITH the following:....(endorsement example)

That said... were I the CFI, I would certainly photograph my student's
passports, driver licenses, and any other information I thought the TSA
might fault me for not having. If this generates a political backlash,
so much the better.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> An instructor must keep a copy of the documents for five years that are
> used to prove citizenship or make an endorsement in both the
> instructor's logbook, or other record used by the instructor to record
> flight student endorsements, and the student's logbook with the
> following:....(endorsement example)
>
> Here is where it further says "OR" keep a copy of student ID.
> http://www.aopa.org/tsa_rule/checklist.pdf

I don't read it anything like that. The "OR" the link is refering to is
the ID used to prove citzenship. There is no requirement to keep
anything else (like DL).

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Emily wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > TRA wrote:
> >> What records about my students do I need to keep for the
> >> TSA? I know what the FAA wants.
> >
> > Assuming you are a U.S. citizen-only CFI (you would have done more with
> > the TSA if you were authorized to teach non-citizens)
> What complete and utter bull****. Does the TSA really think some CFI's
> aren't capable of understanding security enough to teach non-citizens?

I'm not sure what you are talking about. If you want to teach foreign
students you need to register with the TSA to establish an online
account so you can assign students to yourself. No additional training
is required. You do need to have a very short interview by the FSDO and
bring your passport.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Clay wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > BTW: Self endorsement is ok for CFIs to certify either their initial
> > TSA training (the on-line training) or their recurrent training (which
> > requires meeting the airport manager, etc).
> >
> > -Robert
>
> Since I fly out of several differnt airports, does that mean I have to
> meet with the every airport manager?

Yes, and every airport manager you overfly as well. I'm not saying the
rules make any sense, I'm just reporting what the recurrent training of
the TSA requires.

-Robert

[Clay]

Insanity!!!!

[BTIZ]

he's yankin your chain

"Clay" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Insanity!!!!
>

[Clay]

BTIZ wrote:
> he's yankin your chain
>
Probably so, but these days, who knows.
So many rules are "Catch 22".

[Mike Ross]

On 16 Aug 2006 12:46:47 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>
>TRA wrote:
>> What records about my students do I need to keep for the
>> TSA? I know what the FAA wants.
>
>Assuming you are a U.S. citizen-only CFI (you would have done more with
>the TSA if you were authorized to teach non-citizens) you only need to
>keep a copy of their proof of U.S. citizenship (passport) or a log book
>endorsement that you validated it.

<does a double-take>

Non-citizens? What has US citizenship got to do with taking flying
lessons? I'm a green card holder and hope to start flying training
before the end of the summer, and I can assure you that green card
holders are the equal of US citizens in all respects, except that we
can't vote or run for office - and the only reason we can't do those
is because the language in the relevant clauses in the Constitution
specifically refers to 'citizens'. Everywhere else in the Constitution
it refers to 'the people' - which SCOTUS has held to include permanent
residents, as well as citizens.

So any discrimination against permanent residents in flight training
would seem to me to violate the 'equal protection' clause. I presume
there's a missing 'or' - 'proof of US citizenship OR permanent
residence'. If it's a security thing... well to get a green card
you're thoroughly checked out - fingerprints, FBI, background checks
etc...

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

[Robert Chambers]

You will need to be vetted by the TSA before you can begin flight
training for Private/Instrument or Multiengine ratings.

The unfortunate thing is that the vetting process is poorly understood
by most people who have to apply it. I'm not even sure if the TSA
understands it.

Mike Ross wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2006 12:46:47 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>TRA wrote:
>>
>>>What records about my students do I need to keep for the
>>>TSA? I know what the FAA wants.
>>
>>Assuming you are a U.S. citizen-only CFI (you would have done more with
>>the TSA if you were authorized to teach non-citizens) you only need to
>>keep a copy of their proof of U.S. citizenship (passport) or a log book
>>endorsement that you validated it.
>
>
> <does a double-take>
>
> Non-citizens? What has US citizenship got to do with taking flying
> lessons? I'm a green card holder and hope to start flying training
> before the end of the summer, and I can assure you that green card
> holders are the equal of US citizens in all respects, except that we
> can't vote or run for office - and the only reason we can't do those
> is because the language in the relevant clauses in the Constitution
> specifically refers to 'citizens'. Everywhere else in the Constitution
> it refers to 'the people' - which SCOTUS has held to include permanent
> residents, as well as citizens.
>
> So any discrimination against permanent residents in flight training
> would seem to me to violate the 'equal protection' clause. I presume
> there's a missing 'or' - 'proof of US citizenship OR permanent
> residence'. If it's a security thing... well to get a green card
> you're thoroughly checked out - fingerprints, FBI, background checks
> etc...
>
> Mike
> --
> http://www.corestore.org
> 'As I walk along these shores
> I am the history within'

[Emily[_1_]]

Mike Ross wrote:
<snip>
>
> So any discrimination against permanent residents in flight training
> would seem to me to violate the 'equal protection' clause. I presume
> there's a missing 'or' - 'proof of US citizenship OR permanent
> residence'. If it's a security thing... well to get a green card
> you're thoroughly checked out - fingerprints, FBI, background checks
> etc...

Now you're confusing the TSA with an agency that makes regulations that
actually make sense. No, it's not missing an "or"...the rule
specifically stays that permanent residents are included in this.

Here's a link.

http://www.aopa.org/tsa_rule/
http://www.aopa.org/tsa_rule/#aliens

Please don't let this scare you away from learning to fly. Which I
guess is easy for me to say, since it's basically run me out of the
freelance CFI business.

[Jim Macklin]

Since 9/11, all persons seeking flight training must prove
they are legal. Sorry about that, it is a pain in the ass.
But since the 9/11 hijackers did attend flight schools,
flight training has become more difficult, record intensive
and expensive. So far the government has not restricted MS
Flight Simulator game software. At least MS took the WTC
off the box.

All CFIs are encourage to know the rules, even if not
actively instructing. This is because you need to know what
and how to determine what is approved.

see
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/afsp/editorial_multi_image_with_table_0215.shtm



"Mike Ross" > wrote in message
...
| On 16 Aug 2006 12:46:47 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >TRA wrote:
| >> What records about my students do I need to keep for
the
| >> TSA? I know what the FAA wants.
| >
| >Assuming you are a U.S. citizen-only CFI (you would have
done more with
| >the TSA if you were authorized to teach non-citizens) you
only need to
| >keep a copy of their proof of U.S. citizenship (passport)
or a log book
| >endorsement that you validated it.
|
| <does a double-take>
|
| Non-citizens? What has US citizenship got to do with
taking flying
| lessons? I'm a green card holder and hope to start flying
training
| before the end of the summer, and I can assure you that
green card
| holders are the equal of US citizens in all respects,
except that we
| can't vote or run for office - and the only reason we
can't do those
| is because the language in the relevant clauses in the
Constitution
| specifically refers to 'citizens'. Everywhere else in the
Constitution
| it refers to 'the people' - which SCOTUS has held to
include permanent
| residents, as well as citizens.
|
| So any discrimination against permanent residents in
flight training
| would seem to me to violate the 'equal protection' clause.
I presume
| there's a missing 'or' - 'proof of US citizenship OR
permanent
| residence'. If it's a security thing... well to get a
green card
| you're thoroughly checked out - fingerprints, FBI,
background checks
| etc...
|
| Mike
| --
| http://www.corestore.org
| 'As I walk along these shores
| I am the history within'

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Since 9/11, all persons seeking flight training must prove
> they are legal.

Oh, so terrorist can't be US citizens? And a non-citizen with a clean
records can't learn to fly and then be activated by al Qaeda? That's
bizarre logic.

> But since the 9/11 hijackers did attend flight schools

They also had drivers licenses, did they not?

> All CFIs are encourage to know the rules, even if not
> actively instructing. This is because you need to know what
> and how to determine what is approved.

Ok, so answer this. AOPA tells me I need to take the training. As
someone else pointed out, the training for freelance CFI's seems to
consist of a 12 page PDF file. So what are we actually supposed to do?
As I'm not actively instructing, I don't even have an airport to go
poking around.

[Jim Macklin]

It isn't my rule. I think it is stupid and misses the
point. Anybody can learn to fly with a PC and $25 worth of
software anywhere in the world. At least enough to hijack
and crash.

I know that FSI, Cessna and Beech have lost a lot of
business because of the rules.
Yep, there are citizens who are crazy Muslim terrorists,
crazy redneck fundamental Christians, and just plain crazy.

But the rules are the rules, I'm just a messenger for the
messenger.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Since 9/11, all persons seeking flight training must
prove
| > they are legal.
|
| Oh, so terrorist can't be US citizens? And a non-citizen
with a clean
| records can't learn to fly and then be activated by al
Qaeda? That's
| bizarre logic.
|
| > But since the 9/11 hijackers did attend flight schools
|
| They also had drivers licenses, did they not?
|
| > All CFIs are encourage to know the rules, even if not
| > actively instructing. This is because you need to know
what
| > and how to determine what is approved.
|
| Ok, so answer this. AOPA tells me I need to take the
training. As
| someone else pointed out, the training for freelance CFI's
seems to
| consist of a 12 page PDF file. So what are we actually
supposed to do?
| As I'm not actively instructing, I don't even have an
airport to go
| poking around.

[Robert M. Gary]

Emily wrote:
> They also had drivers licenses, did they not?

Yes, in fact one of the pilots was pulled over for speeding on his way
to the airport. Despire the fact that the INS was looking for him
because he had overstayed his visa, his driver's license was still 100%
valid. Now California is talking about trumping federal law and
offering driver's licenses to illegal aliens even if they never did
have legal status.

-Robert

[Jose[_1_]]

> Despire the fact that the INS was looking for him
> because he had overstayed his visa, his driver's license was still 100%
> valid.

His library card would probably still be valid too.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

Jose wrote:
> > Despire the fact that the INS was looking for him
> > because he had overstayed his visa, his driver's license was still 100%
> > valid.
>
> His library card would probably still be valid too.

But the officer did not run his library card for a background check, he
did run his DL to look for warrents but he came out clean even though
he was wanted by the INS. Many states believe that allowing the INS to
flag a driver's license in a threat to privacy.

-Robert

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> But the officer did not run his library card for a background check,

I've met some librarians who would make you wish you were arrested if
you had an overdue book! 8^)

[Jose[_1_]]

> But the officer did not run his library card for a background check, he
> did run his DL to look for warrents but he came out clean even though
> he was wanted by the INS.

The post was about the DL being =valid=, not about its failing to be
flagged.

> Many states believe that allowing the INS to
> flag a driver's license in a threat to privacy.

I think I agree with them.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
Somebody else wrote:
>> Many states believe that allowing the INS to
>> flag a driver's license in a threat to privacy.
>
> I think I agree with them.
>
> Jose


So, if you are wanted for murder should they flag your DL?

[Jose[_1_]]

> So, if you are wanted for murder should they flag your DL?

No, if I am wanted for murder, I don't want to get caught.

I have no problem with certain things being flags on the DL - murder
being one example. However, the list is too easy to expand. Terrorism?
(based on TSA's secret criteria?) Child molestation? Skinny dipping?
Skinny dipping with children? Your children?

Drug lords? Drug mules? Suspicion of pot smoking? Neighbor complaints
about unkempt lawns and "strange smells"?

There is due process, but I've seen that due process abused too often
for me to be comfortable allowing the authorities to flag common
activities. For that matter, why not flag credit cards, library cards,
and Stop-and-shop cards? It would be extremely effective, and not a bad
deterrent to boot.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> So, if you are wanted for murder should they flag your DL?
>
> No, if I am wanted for murder, I don't want to get caught.
>
> I have no problem with certain things being flags on the DL - murder being
> one example. However, the list is too easy to expand. Terrorism? (based
> on TSA's secret criteria?) Child molestation? Skinny dipping? Skinny
> dipping with children? Your children?
>
> Drug lords? Drug mules? Suspicion of pot smoking? Neighbor complaints
> about unkempt lawns and "strange smells"?
>
> There is due process, but I've seen that due process abused too often for
> me to be comfortable allowing the authorities to flag common activities.
> For that matter, why not flag credit cards, library cards, and
> Stop-and-shop cards? It would be extremely effective, and not a bad
> deterrent to boot.
>

How about "people who are wanted for breaking the law?" That will cover both
people wanted for INS violations and murders.

[Jose[_1_]]

> How about "people who are wanted for breaking the law?" That will cover both
> people wanted for INS violations and murders.

And jaywalkers.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

Jose wrote:
> > So, if you are wanted for murder should they flag your DL?
>
> No, if I am wanted for murder, I don't want to get caught.
>
> I have no problem with certain things being flags on the DL - murder
> being one example. However, the list is too easy to expand. Terrorism?
> (based on TSA's secret criteria?) Child molestation? Skinny dipping?
> Skinny dipping with children? Your children?


What about "overstayed visa and the INS wants you deported"?

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Jose wrote:
> > How about "people who are wanted for breaking the law?" That will cover both
> > people wanted for INS violations and murders.
>
> And jaywalkers.

So if someone has an outstanding warrent for jaywalking you do not want
that information provided to law enforcement persons when they run a
warrent check on you???

-Robert

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Jose wrote:
>> > How about "people who are wanted for breaking the law?" That will cover
>> > both
>> > people wanted for INS violations and murders.
>>
>> And jaywalkers.
>
> So if someone has an outstanding warrent for jaywalking you do not want
> that information provided to law enforcement persons when they run a
> warrent check on you???
>
> -Robert
>

If the person has an outstanding warrant and hasn't paid the fine or
no-showed for court why not. Do you think the state has no right to use
methods to capture those who break its laws?

[Robert M. Gary]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> > So if someone has an outstanding warrent for jaywalking you do not want
> > that information provided to law enforcement persons when they run a
> > warrent check on you???
> >
> > -Robert
> >
>
> If the person has an outstanding warrant and hasn't paid the fine or
> no-showed for court why not. Do you think the state has no right to use
> methods to capture those who break its laws?

You're preaching to the choir.

-Robert

[Morgans[_3_]]

> > Many states believe that allowing the INS to
> > flag a driver's license in a threat to privacy.
>
> I think I agree with them.

That is ridiculous!

In that case, the DL should not be flagged, or checked, for any infraction.
The flags are there to catch people who are breaking the law, and bring them
to justice. Last I heard, it is against the law to be in this country
without valid and current, permission from INS, if you are an alien.

I also can't believe that kalifornia kooks would issue a DL to an illegal
alien. They are all crazy, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_3_]]

> > How about "people who are wanted for breaking the law?" That will cover
both
> > people wanted for INS violations and murders.
>
> And jaywalkers.

Now you are just being inflamitory.

Why is everything so black and white for you?

There will always be some gray areas, but us *rational* people (notice I am
not including you) can surely see that immigration violations and jaywalking
are of a totally different nature.
--
Jim in NC

[Emily[_1_]]

Jose wrote:

>
> There is due process
There's no due process anymore.

[Emily[_1_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> Jose wrote:
>>>> How about "people who are wanted for breaking the law?" That will cover
>>>> both
>>>> people wanted for INS violations and murders.
>>> And jaywalkers.
>> So if someone has an outstanding warrent for jaywalking you do not want
>> that information provided to law enforcement persons when they run a
>> warrent check on you???
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>
> If the person has an outstanding warrant and hasn't paid the fine or
> no-showed for court why not. Do you think the state has no right to use
> methods to capture those who break its laws?
>
>
The problem is, some of the laws they are enforcing aren't
Constitutional and no one has done a damn thing about it.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>>> Jose wrote:
>>>>> How about "people who are wanted for breaking the law?" That will
>>>>> cover both
>>>>> people wanted for INS violations and murders.
>>>> And jaywalkers.
>>> So if someone has an outstanding warrent for jaywalking you do not want
>>> that information provided to law enforcement persons when they run a
>>> warrent check on you???
>>>
>>> -Robert
>>>
>>
>> If the person has an outstanding warrant and hasn't paid the fine or
>> no-showed for court why not. Do you think the state has no right to use
>> methods to capture those who break its laws?
> The problem is, some of the laws they are enforcing aren't Constitutional
> and no one has done a damn thing about it.

Name one that has ever had an effect on someone's DL.

[Robert M. Gary]

So you are saying if someone has a warrent for their arrest for a crime
against a law you think might be unconstitutional your solution to
fixing that issue is not to allow law enforcement officers access to
that information when they run a DL during a traffic stop????
Just plain crazy!

-Robert


Emily wrote:
> The problem is, some of the laws they are enforcing aren't
> Constitutional and no one has done a damn thing about it.

[[email protected]]

Morgans wrote:
> > > Many states believe that allowing the INS to
> > > flag a driver's license in a threat to privacy.
> >
> > I think I agree with them.
>
> That is ridiculous!
>
> In that case, the DL should not be flagged, or checked, for any infraction.
> The flags are there to catch people who are breaking the law, and bring them
> to justice. Last I heard, it is against the law to be in this country
> without valid and current, permission from INS, if you are an alien.

Well this is where things get interesting. AFAIK (as a Brit who has
gone through the legal immigration system) being in the country
illegally is against the law but it isn't actually a crime; if you get
caught you just get deported, not tried and jailed.

That's what some politicians in Washington are working on now, I've
heard - they want to make being here illegally a felony, so you get
tried, serve jail time, *then* get deported.

FWIW I too have concerns about changing the purpose of driving licenses
too far. They're *driving* licenses, not ID cards. Their function is to
'prove' you've been trained to drive safely. Beware of getting
national ID cards by the back door... Ihre Papieren, bitte!

Mike