You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
California to make it easier to drive without license
2006-08-14
California lawmakers are working on a plan that would cut the penalty for some of the people who drive without licenses, giving a huge break to those who just don't want to bother with all that nuisance of getting one.

The state Senate has voted 25-14 to endorse a plan that would reduce a required 30-day impoundment of vehicles to 24-hours – if the drivers never bothered to get a license.

The old law required that 30-day parking plan for the vehicles of drivers caught without licenses, whether they never had one or their licenses were forfeited or suspended. The new plan keeps that 30-day penalty if a driver's license is suspended or forfeited, but cuts it to 24 hours for those who didn't bother with the system in the first place.

"Break federal immigration law, then break California law by driving without a license, and Sacramento wants you to get your car back the next day so that you can continue driving without a license – and probably without insurance, because you need a license to qualify for it," Saunders wrote. "It's' almost as if the Legislature is telling illegal immigrants that the state expects them to drive without a license." State Sen. Chuck Poochigian, R-Fresno, noted it actually penalizes those who try to comply with state law.

Sen. Nell Soto, D-Pomona, described the bill as making it "fairer" because it would stop the "excessive penalties" against those "unable to obtain drivers licenses."
Excellent idea. Let's apply it to CCWs, too.
John Whitney, a member of the Christian group One LA, said that his organization has worked for the plan because as a "conservative Christian evangelical," he wanted to see special treatment for those who cannot get licenses because they are not legal residents."
And who might that be?
Posted by:Jackal

#19  why in the hell can't i have a license for 1 DUI but every goddamn wetback in north america can drive and no one gives a shit?
Posted by: FUCK YOU CALI   2006-08-14 16:47  

#18  He's got a point about the non-licensed drivers,, J.D. (Damned little with a DUI himself, though.)

He needn't be quite so rude about it, though; that definitely won't help his cause.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-08-14 17:10  

#17  Still, He's got a point.
#13 I've been asking that question right along.
Posted by: j. D. Lux   2006-08-14 17:05  

#16  Cleanup on Aisle 15, please.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-08-14 16:49  

#15  
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in
banning.

Try again without the racism, pal.
Posted by: FUCK YOU CALI   2006-08-14 16:47  

#14  I hate my state.
Posted by: Iblis   2006-08-14 16:30  

#13  So what happens when one of these folks runs a stop sign unlicensed and uninsured and takes out some soccer mom and her brood? Do the survivors sue Nelly Soto or John Whitney? Cuz you know Chico's not gonna cover it...
Posted by: tu3031   2006-08-14 15:11  

#12  What's next? Reducing the sentence for Rape, Robbery, and Murder to weeks instead of years for those who 'might feel disenfrancised' because they weren't legal residents -- or were simply following their religious tradition of killing jews and infidels?

(oops... I hope nobody on the CA legislature is reading this - they might get ideas....)
Posted by: CrazyFool   2006-08-14 14:32  

#11  The state Senate has voted 25-14 to endorse a plan that would reduce a required 30-day impoundment of vehicles to 24-hours – if the drivers never bothered to get a license.

Will they be re-impounded when the same unlicensed driver shows up to pick up his car?

Sounds like time for another Voters Initiative if this turkey is enacted.
Posted by: SLO Jim   2006-08-14 14:19  

#10  Well I'm also in doubt he's a 'conservative Christian evangelical', BA. Being one myself and hanging around with many others, I believe there is a consensus among us that 1) Illegal Immigration must be stopped by the government, because it's their responsibility to provide a secure border in a sovereign state; and 2) Christians should have compassion on their fellow man, to the extent that if they find a man that needs clothes, clothe him; if they find a thirsty person, give him something to drink, etc, and 3) Harboring or facilitating illegal activities under the guise of being a good Christian is a violation of scripture, i.e., the 'render unto Caesar' passage you refer to. I've never heard among Bible believers even the hint of wanting 'special treatment' for illegals; thus the incredulity of my previous comments.

Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-08-14 13:45  

#9  mcsegeek: I imagine, at least with the use of the quotes, that if you research that group, they're probably not "conservative Christians" at all, but a leftist-quasi-religious group. True conservative Christians wouldn't get involved with this, but would be more worried about "reaching" the illegals with the Words of Christ (not trying to get them off the hook for driving w/o a license). "Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's." I'd guess that group wants everything to be "fair" and "feel good," not actually laying out ground rules, only to change them later.
Posted by: BA   2006-08-14 13:24  

#8  Just match this plan with a revision to law that stipulates that unlicensed and uninsured motorists can't sue for damages [cause they weren't suppose to be on the road in the first place]. Cuts them and their lawyers off at the scrotum.
Posted by: Hupasing Crath3963   2006-08-14 12:47  

#7  Because it lets him sow divisiveness by pretending for the cameras to be a conservative. It also helps give the "centrists" cover if even the "conservatives" are for this plan.
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman   2006-08-14 12:19  

#6  Well, yeah, that's the effect. But I don't understand why a "conservative Christian evangelical" would say it.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-08-14 12:04  

#5  
I have absolutely no idea what this means.

It means he wanted non-citizens to have more rights than citizens.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-08-14 11:47  

#4  Backsliding.
Posted by: newc   2006-08-14 10:53  

#3  There's probably a fee associated with the retrieval of the vehicle. By shortening the stay they can increase the frequency and thus increase the revenue.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2006-08-14 10:52  

#2  Why not. They already drive without insurance.
Posted by: ed   2006-08-14 10:13  

#1  "John Whitney, a member of the Christian group One LA, said that his organization has worked for the plan because as a "conservative Christian evangelical," he wanted to see special treatment for those who cannot get licenses because they are not legal residents."

I have absolutely no idea what this means.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-08-14 10:02  

00:00