Thanks for asking this question since this is on my mind, too.
I am not sure what you especially see in the statute quoted (let us know!), but the laws are the same everywhere- residents drive under domestic state law, and foreigners ("nonresidents") under the statutory exemption clause as regulated by international law (treaty on road traffic).
Keep in mind that driving is a flag activity- we drive under the law our state of residence for such purpose (we may reside for other purpose in 2 or more states). DL comes from declared residence status, one flag per visit, please (according to the statutes).
The state grants that foreign drivers (and vehicles) may "operate", or whatever, on the public roads if they meet all the due requirements of the home state. So if it's legal in your state, it's legal in 'this' state.
I would argue that everyone is resident somewhere somehow- it's an attribute of legal personality, to which everyone is entitled under intl law (UN treaty) parties thereto including the all of the U.S.A.
All persons by definition have a 'res-identity' ie- a flag of status. Otherwise I am not a person, and the statutes don't apply to me anyway. Only persons are subject and can sue or be sued.
(in ancient and slave societies foreigners and chattels often had no redress in courts, for lack of a legal status. They also could not be sued, for the same reason. Thats one reason the legal fiction of 'persona' was developed, to cover everyone).
So the question for ocifer bakin' is: "what are the due requirements of my state of residence? Do I conform to them?"
Every cop has been trained that having a domestic DL compels the owner to produce same on demand, in driving situations. It is that very nexus, that the DL in requesition has been issued by the very same state making the demand, that creates that obligation. As a foreign driver my license is outside of that law. Stautes that compel production of a DL also include the definition, as is referenced in your legal quote, that a "driver's license means any license to operate a motor vehicle issued under the laws of this state." A foreign DL is issued under the law of another state, naturally.
Then, the kicker- the intl treaty mentioned above contemplates that its entirely possible that a driver holds a valid driving permit, under the laws of the home status, without actually being issued any driver licence instrument, or one that is useless for making any determinations.
"2. A Contracting State may however require that any driver admitted to its territory shall carry an international driving permit conforming to the model contained in annex 10, especially in the case of a driver coming from a country where a domestic driving permit is not required or where the domestic permit issued to him does not conform to the [standard] model."
For example in Europe we are all (over 14) legal to drive a motor scooter, and a light car ("smart car", like the 'mini' and only goes about 40 mph max) without formal DL. Under both intl law and all U.S. laws we can do that in Kansas or where-ever as well, under the same conditions, because we drive under the legality of the home state. If it's legal in my state then it's legal in this state, as far as vehicles and driving go.
Many countries de facto or de jure do not require a DL. Lets hear 'ocifer talksalot' tell us all about the requirements in Laos, or Belize.
So first of all I don't need to carry anything in particular to justify my DL- no law could ever set a consistent standard for all foreign states. I do have to meet the age minimum, and be competent- that's presumed to be required everywhere. (it's not a 'license to kill').
What is my state of residence? How about a PRIVATE FREEHOLD? Any competent witness want to attempt a rebuttal in court? Or claim any violation of my own due requirements?
It also demolishes the arguement that "a DL is for public safety", since ANYONE, with the right status, from ANYWHERE (cannibals etc) can legally drive in America. And since the system is so open anyway that could be ammo for the arguement that the official objective of public safety can be achieved with less onerous means.
The law already gives the cops the authority to conduct roadside driving tests, for sobriety, physical health (sight, etc), knowledge of traffic laws etc. So if there is a reason to suspect incompetence then test me, I can parallel park pretty good...but then that's rarely the issue, of course.
Now, as to the part quoted above, from the treaty, the so-called 'requirement to carry an IDP, especially when...' (no domestic-issued instrument required, for example), we have the esteemed opinion of the Idaho Dept, available at
http://itd.idaho.gov/dmv/driverservi...onalpermit.htm
"Foreign Drivers in Idaho
... Visitors must carry the foreign driver license and, in addition, it is suggested that visitors carry an International Driving Permit issued by officials in their country of residence. It is not mandatory that visitors have the International Driving Permit; it is merely a suggestion to aid law enforcement officials and others who need to know the actual content of the license. The International Driving Permit is a translation of the foreign license into the nine official languages of the United Nations, including English.
Since an International Driving Permit is not a driver license, merely a translation of the foreign driver license, it does not authorize any driving privileges. You may not drive in Idaho carrying just an International Driving Permit."
------------------------------------------------------
So we can drive without ANY 'domestic drivers permit', ie- a drivers card, legally. And we dont need any IDP either, since it's just a helpful suggestion.
We CAN use it, that's another story, to provide identity for a ticket or accident report. I could easily do one up on the spot, write my info in the presence of the 'state employee' which makes it legal, since this act is subject to criminal penalty for 'false information' .
(whatever that is, information is by definition secondary to first-hand knowledge, and therefore lacks any true/false aspect ab initio. I cant commit perjury with mere information. Convictions are not supposed to issue on only 'information' As far as I can tell 'false information' means 'impersonating another', since thats the only way an identity could be false, if it was someone elses. Some states punish giving an 'assumed identity', but only if this is done with 'criminal intent', to 'evade liability'.)
All the same concepts apply to registration, plates, insurance, etc.
