Reply To: NARSOL joins Tenth Circuit case challenging license requirement

Derek W Logue of

Wow, who bothered to read this amicus brief? I want to know who wrote this:

“Second, even if driver’s licenses might serve a legitimate notification purpose, there are alternatives that would do the trick without the cruelty of the Statute’s branding requirement. Using a code or other designation on driver’s licenses would satisfy the government’s alleged notification purpose without shaming individuals when they must use their licenses for employment, housing, and other purposes. Delaware, for instance, uses the letter ‘Y’ on a driver’s license to designate whether someone is a convicted sex offender. 21 Del. Code § 2718(e). The Y is located on the back side of the license, along with designations for “corrective lenses” or “organ donor.” This reasonable alternative meets the notification goal without harming a registrant’s chance for successful integration back into society.”

This rant is brought to you by the letter “Y”. As in, “Y” would anyone in the anti-registry movement claim ANY mark on licenses would be reasonable? Stamping a “Y” is no less of a scarlet letter. It is still a mark of infamy. The Nazis only needed one letter to identify the Jews, a nice little J. Remember when we used that in the protest against IML?

Do you honestly think that if they change the mark people won’t find out about it? It will be on every media outlet in Oklahoma. That is not a “reasonable alternative.” I have a reasonable alternative for you– NO marks of infamy.

This brief isn’t something to be proud of!