So your drivers license from California is not an accepted form of ID. What we know of current procedures is the blue shirt will ask for a costco card or debit card.

You will be brought through screening. You will not have any alarms or anomalies. You will be thinking "I can get to my plane."

You then will be subject to secondary screening. Your bags, despite no evidence of prohibited items, will be subject to a secondary search. Your body, despite no evidence of prohibited items will be subject to a secondary search.

By all accounts and competent screening your carryons and your person are clear and safe for travel. But since, it is January 10 2016, and your State issued California drivers license is not acceptable - even though it was from 2002 to January 09 2016, you must undergo secondary screening. Even though TSA is virtually 100% confident you no prohibited items.

So you start to think to yourself this secondary search violates my 4th Amendments rights. You find a lawyer and internet group who agree with you. You file a lawsuit in a Federal Court in California. You will claim:

"TSA screeners are limited to the single administrative goal of searching for possible safety threats related to explosives, the constitutional bounds of an airport administrative search require that the individual screener's actions be no more intrusive than necessary to determine the existence or absence of explosives that could result in harm to the passengers and aircraft. ($124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d at 1245)". In light of this limitation, Plaintiff passed through initial screening without anomalies or alarms your person or property; thus the search authority of TSA ended. However, despite the lack of legal authority or even a minutia of suspicion to search, Plaintiff was subject to secondary screening. TSA exceeded its authority in conducting a secondary search. TSA violated the Plaintiff 4th Amendment rights in conducting a secondary search.

You then find out your case was dismissed outright based on:

An administrative search "conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings." ~ United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir.1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 111, 166 L.Ed.2d 255 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.

And while every TSA agent would testify "While we were nearly 100% confident the passenger did not have a WEI or any prohibited items we still conducted a secondary search", the Court will also say "Even though everyone would testify you had no WEI, the secondary search was '"is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [][and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913."

If you do not believe me see US v. Aukai, 497 F. 3d 955 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2007

I noticed that Canadian driver's licenses are on the TSA list of acceptable identification. do provinces have to follow the REAL ID Act? Is it even possible for them to do so? Why is there no threat of the TSA no longer accepting these as identification?

Canada has required the same id as RealID for many years now to get a driver's license. At least here in BC, you must present primary and secondary id which show your citizenship and legal staus in Canada, such as a Passport, Canadian Birth Certificate, Citizenship Card or Immigration document showing your status. There are other options as well. http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing...cepted-ID.aspx.

When it was changed several years ago, anyone who had never shown a valid immigration document or proof of Canadian citizenship was required to do so at their next renewal. They got only a temporary, paper license until the proper ID was presented. There was a ton of yelling and screaming from those who had only visitor status in Canada amongst others. If one has Immigration papers that have an expiry, only an interim drivers license is issued and you must present updated visa status to get a full d/l.

And since about 15 years ago, Canada has only allowed your full, legal name on your drivers license. No nicknames or shortened versions. People whose passports didn't match had to have them changed to match their birth certificate/citizenship/immigration docs before they could renew. In fact, until just a few years ago, a passport was not considered a primary id to get a drivers license because up until that time, you could have whatever name you wanted on your passport, such as a shortened version of your name (Bill instead of William), an English name that an immigrant chose to use but is not their legal name, omitting a first name when using a middle name as their 'name', etc. People could not inderstand why a passport was not acceptable but a passport was really just proof of citizenship. Thst changed after 9/11 and people had to have their passports changed to reflect their full, legal name. It is now valid id for a d/l. The id requirements also apply to provincial ID cards. We also have an Enhanced D/L which serves as a border crossing document but it is not mandatory.

So yes, a Canadian D/L would be in compliance with Real Id I would think.

http://shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploa...ma-regions.jpg

National ID on it's way? Maybe the next step will require authorization to travel outside of your home zone.

Don't give DHS any ideas.

By the letter of US law, and given Canadian practices when it comes to Canada-issuing driving licenses, no Canadian driving license is compliant with the so-called Real ID provisions in US law. Canada would, for example, have to demand US SSA numbers and verify them and/or eligibility for a SSA number.

From what date are TSA likely to actually enforce any ID changes? (I've heard that the REAL ID extensions expire Jan 10th, but at least CA has been granted another extension until October.)

Also, would the enforcement be based on the ID, or the state? So would pre REAL ID id's/licences be accepted if the state now issues REAL ID compliant id's/licences?

I wonder if I'd therefore have a more difficult time travelling on my new CA State ID than on my British passport in future? (As a foreigner I'm pretty much required to carry my passport anywhere I go, but I'm hoping to at least be able to keep it in my bags instead of carrying it in my hand every time I go through the TSA.)

TSA claims it will give 120 days' notice before enforcing the REAL ID requirement.

I, for one, think DHS will blink.

It's totally ridiculous that they won't accept at DL from a "non complaint" state but will accept a passport or passport card which are easier to get than an DL.

One of the requirements for states and compliant ID is that all photos be able to be run through facial recognition technology. Your passport photo is not required to be FRT-friendly, however.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Knowing how TSA works and how the bureaucratic mindset operates, I am willing to bet serious coin that when TSA does start mandating REAL ID compliance, they will continue to accept old, non-compliant licenses from states that promise to meet the standard.

It will go like this: A number of states fail to meet the standard. Those states will be put on a list, and that list will be distributed to TSOs as a memo - refuse licenses from these states. The memo will explain why, but most TSOs won't read it or understand it, they'll only understand that licenses from states on the list are no longer acceptable ID. Licenses from states not on the list WILL be acceptable ID. TSA won't mention anything about old, non-compliant licenses in the memo, they'll just keep it simple (in deference to the IQ of the average TSO) by saying "These states: Not acceptable. All other states: Acceptable."

GE, Nexus, Passport books and cards, and Canadian DLs will also remain acceptable, despite not being REAL ID compliant. And I don't think anybody has ever told them to stop accepting Costco and Sams Club cards.

I don't think this will happen until and unless all 50 states plus the various territories in the US all adopt the REAL ID standard. All of this nonsense about TSA rejecting non-compliant licenses is nothing more than a scare tactic by the feds to try to force compliance on states that don't want to spend the money to completely change their licensing and ID standards.

Last I checked, people can still apply for passports. A passport card, if you only need to travel in the US, is something like $30. Cheaper than a driver's license.

This. It's a violation of liberty, it serves little point, but it's a clickbait headline - no one is being grounded. They have to shell out another $30 on top of their plane ticket. A few more papers to file. Annoying, bureaucratic, and stupid... but not grounding.

Tens of millions of natural-born US citizens don't have sufficient documents in hand available to apply for and get a passport card within the next 4-6 weeks for just $30.

Even a US passport card renewal costs me more than my driving license renewal costs me.

Denying people freedom of movement using commercial air travel services because of the absence of specific forms of ID is a grounding. But even some people with "REAL ID" are grounded by the DHS.

I highly doubt tens of millions of those who fly would need one. I imagine that the vast majority of Americans WHO FLY, possess passports. Remember, most people rarely or never get on a plane. Getting a passport card with your tickets would just become part of the process if you live in a non-compliant state.

I'm not saying it's good. It's awful. "Papers, please" - just that the headline is misleading clickbait, no one is being "grounded".

The vast majority of Americans who fly don't have a passport when at the airport. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's still over 50% of Americans at airports who don't have a currently valid passport. Even 8 years ago, the vast majority of domestic US airline passengers had no currently valid passport at the time of flying.

Yes, the article headlines seem to be audience bait, but that is what DHS seems to love too.

I am expecting DHS to do what it has done before with regard to states' ID/driving licenses: not enforce this REAL ID junk despite threatening to do so.

You do realize that it takes up to 6 weeks to get a passport card, don't you?

What happens when you live in a non-compliant state and find out that a close relative is near death 1200 miles away; you need to get there ASAP. You get a ticket and get to the airport only to find the TSA won't let you on the plane because you don't have an acceptable ID.

Methinks you need to expand your horizons and realize that a good part of the world doesn't work the way you seem to think it should.

ID isn't required to fly as long as you can verify your identity another way, you just face additional questioning and searching. So you'd still not be grounded in that situation. Harassed, but not grounded.