The Story Behind This California Man’s Driver’s License Literally Had an Entire DMV Clapping

http://www.ijreview.com/2016/01/506019-the-reason-a-veteran-would-not-remove-his-usmc-hat-for-a-drivers-license-pic-had-the-dmv-clapping/
* Photo & FaceBook post on link *

When a U.S. Marine Corps veteran went to the DMV to get his license renewed in earlier December, he was asked to take off his ‘USMC’ hat for the photo.

The veteran, Alex Morales, didn’t want to remove the hat and he had a powerful reason. When he was asked the second time, Morales made an observation that had the employees at the DMV at a loss for words.

Morales’s wife, Henrietta, posted about what Alex did to her Facebook page:


wearing his hat:


Score one for a Marine veteran.

U.S. Marine: California DMV Lets Vet Wear USMC Hat In Photo http://artofgears.com/2015/12/22/california-dmv-lets-marine-vet-wear-his-usmc-hat-in-license-photo/

CALIFORNIA OFFERING ID'S MARKING VETERANS. POTENTIAL TOOL FOR TARGETING ?

http://youtu.be/0I74C7BlAzM/

California DMV Offers Veteran Designation on Driver Licenses, ID Cards

NBC 7 San Diego

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/California-DMV-Veterans-Designation-Driver-License-ID-Cards-344963392.html/

Challenger questions Frazier’s veterans driver’s license bill, due to fee charged

Antioch Herald

http://antiochherald.com/2015/12/p19382a/

Sorry Sassy, your second link (nbc) did not work. However I DID listen to about 4 minutes of the drivel on youtube. There is no conspiracy in effect with this. Yes, I personally (as a veteran myself) think it is high handed of the government to charge a veteran if they decide to have their ID marked as such, but it is no different than having your license plates marked as Veterans Plates. It is considered a VANITY license and thus you pay for the privilege.

As far as the suggestions that it is a means for the government to track soldiers and veterans who are more likely to won guns? nonsense. I joined the Army back in 1993, long before everything went digital. I left the Army in 1999, STILL long before everything went digital. However, the government still has my DNA on file, as well as all my medical information, my family information, where I lived prior to and during my enlistment (as well as for several years after I left the Army since I married another soldier) who staid in until 2003. If the government wants to find me, they can do so within about 5 minutes, if not sooner. And they can (and will) do so without resorting to checking ID cards or Drivers Licenses for veteran status; they already know I am a Veteran.

I was thinking the same, in terms of it being a 'vanity' type thing

advertising your career choice, or your favorite team,, etc

they do it with plates and its consistent to do it with licenses as well

This is what I got out of the article:

California DMV people don't know their own rules and policy, are so scared to take responsibility for something so minor, they had to make calls and find a daddy that would tell them either that it's okay, or just what to do.

So

The marine didn't really win, at best he pointed out how bad government employees and institutions are, which is pretty much already known, and he lost an hour of his life to do it.


You do know the DMV can sell the information you give them...right?
Like to collection agents, insurance companies, banks, and more?
Targeting you for marketing?
The whole "we take your privacy very serious" boilerplate means "we pretend to pay attention to who we sell your information to and what they do with it, we don't just post it on the internet for anyone."

Everyone is targeted by being in a DMV database.

Damn..NBC link again? May give up on them entirely.

The video for the few posters that don't 'read'

The targeting veterans issue. Well that has been in the news off & on for 2 decades. I would assume most forum personalities knew. Here is a link of 52 pages of Veteran groups being watched 2002- 2012

Resources | Southern Poverty Law Center http://www.splcenter.org/resources?keyword=Veterans/

Other than that.. If threads are not up to your standards, make a few.. myself & others would look forward to it & be sure to make pit stops.

as per military regs, hats are to worn outside, not inside... and it's a state law that all hats, scarfs, and anything else that covers the head can't be worn in a DL photo... at least in Texas anyway, not so sure about the lib states...

so i take it this opens some doors for muslim women to go full burka now?

Of course you say that.
If Obama wants it...

So Let It Be Written: http://youtu.be/h4emcNAf5lY/

so if there's separation of church and state, why do the muslims get to wear there turbans on a DL photo? either there is a separation or there isn't... which seems to only apply to non christian religions...

of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

as in

of course you say that,, because Obama says it,,,

lol



pretty clear on the meaning,,,,

Edited for off-topic.

soufie
Site Moderator

Like many other issues with Texas (and other states) you are wrong in regards to texas not allowing headgear to be worn when taking a drivers license photo; or at least in regards to them being able to legally enforce it. There are many cases NATIONWIDE where an individual has sued for discrimination and stereotyping, etc for being made to take off their hat.

Your initial spiel regarding military regs is also off base since it has no bearing on this matter (since we are discussing a VETERAN and not an active duty soldier). Once you are discharged from the military you can not be held to their standrds. The ONLY possible exception (and this is based off of point of view) is if you are reinstated to face court martial for actions performed while in service prior to discharge. Bu then, you have been reinstated thus you are active duty again and not a civilian, even if you did not agree to the change in status, so ;-)



Edit: also as a point of interest headgear IS allowed to be worn in side if you enter a building with your arms full or if you are bearing arms (handling a weapon) There are a few other exceptions to the rule as well but this should suffice in showing the facts.

Are you seriously going to try and pull the religion card here? You know as well as everyone else here, that separation of church and state means literally that the sate can not tell you what you can and can not do in the name of your religion SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT HARM YOURSELF OR ANOTHER PERSON. For example, the state can (and does) forbid Sharia law in regards to forcing a women to do something against her will or for assaulting a women because she failed to wear her burka properly, etc. However, the wearing of a burka in no way shape or form harms anyone or takes away from their rights, thus they can not be denied the right to wear it as their religion DOES require them to do so

glad to see you know so much about everything, we need another know it all around here...

Well you know it was getting boring. Now we have this guy and I see our old friend Mr Plagiarism is back..

oh I freely admit I do not know everything, however I do know what horse manure and cow dung smell like and no I am not afraid to holler out when I smell it so nobody else steps in it ;-)

I sure hope you are not accusing me of something as vile as plagiarism...

lol, i was just reading some of his(old friend) mess in the other topic...