Minrott wrote:Notify, in lieu of receiving a duplicate license[i]. My original post, if you read it instead of looking for something quickly you thought you could google to provide an antithesis, stated that the Patrol was telling people [i]they had to get a new license. I don't even know why I try to bring up issues like this to the lowest common denominator.
I now understand what you were getting at based on your most recent post. When reading your original post however I misunderstood you both because in certain aspects you didn't make it clear and because of differences in perspective in what is meant by "changing the address on your license".
Due to the varying ways states handle address changes on drivers licenses, some myself included would read your original post as you arguing that you didn't have to notify DMV of an address change. Here in Oregon, notifying DMV of and address change, and getting the address listed on your license changed are one in the same. After you notify DMV of an address change they update the computer records and send you a sticker with the new address which you stick to your license and cover up the old address. Changing the address on your license here does not mean getting a new physical card, and frankly because of the wording and my perspective as a resident of Oregon, I thought you were arguing that your state didn't have laws requiring that you notify DMV of an address change for drivers license purposes.
You then quoted the "statute in question". The statute deals with vehicle registration and not driver licenses. One could either take from this that you were referencing the law that was sited to you as the reasoning for getting a new license, or given you are generally pretty well informed about these sort of things, people might come to the conclusion that there were no state specific laws in regards to drivers licenses and address changes, and that the state in absence of having such laws tried to extend the vehicle registration clause to cover them.
To answer the original question, yes to an extent you are "bucking the system" in that you aren't being a good little citizen doing whatever the police or government ask of you because of whim or convenience ... BUT that is absolutely needed to ensure that government and police do not overstep the bounds set forth by the laws.
To give you an example along the same lines:
A few years ago I was pulled over in the early morning hours due to my license plate light being out, the officer sighted me with what is commonly known as a "fix it" ticket. Basically you pay a small sum after having the situation corrected and the ticket is thrown out, nothing goes on your record ect, but it ensures you will correct the problem.
The officer of course wrote out the law I was in violation of on the ticket. What I didn't know at the time, but would soon find out was that officers carry what basically amounts to cliff notes of state laws. When I went to fix the license plate light I noticed that I had not one but two of them. When I turned on the lights I noticed one was actually lit, the other was burnt out. Curious I went and looked up the law and found that there was quite a bit more too the law then what was written in short form on the ticket. The reason I looked it up is I was curious what the lighting requirements were considering that many vehicles only have one light, not two. The law did not address the functionality of a number of lights, merely how well the plate was illuminated. It was also very specific as to what conditions a determination of adequate illumination was to take place under. The exact wording of the law was something along the lines of under clear atmospheric conditions on an unlighted highway. That particular morning we had dense fog, not something common for the area, certainly not something any residents would consider normal conditions, and I had been pulled over on a city street in front of a brightly lit store.
So yea... I could have just payed the ten dollar fee after fixing the second light and been done with it, and quite frankly for the time invested in fighting it I would have been ahead in doing so. My problem was is that I didn't feel that I was in violation of the law, or that the test for the subjective determination of lighting adequacy had been determined fairly. The county clerk looked at me like I was nuts when I told her that I wanted to go before the judge and plead not guilty and that while ten dollars was certainly not going to break me it was MY ten dollars and I didn't feel I should have to pay anything. In the end I never had to appear before a judge, I was able to enter a plea and statement on paper, and the judge threw the case out. So yes I guess you could say I bucked the system, and it really wasn't worth my time and effort, but in the end I'm glad I did, and would do it again in a heartbeat, not because I couldn't afford to lose the pittance that was the fine, but because it was the principal of the matter.
Snow and cheese, a lethal mix...
bullshit i dont believe it