Howdy Friends!
I can understand both perspectives. In so doing, I'd like to stick up for Troquie here.
Ya'll should remember that he's a fairly new hand at open carrying and as such, less likely to be prepared for that first time LEO encounter.
He was in a vehicle, though not driving, he was behind the wheel. It may have been required for him to provide I.D., I dunno for sure.
And I can understand not talking to cops. Just because I do it real frequently like, doesn't mean it is something everybody ought to do.
Especially if you haven't grown some working base of knowledge to deal with them appropriately.
My perspective is one built on being able to quote specific CRS, settled cases (Terry v. Ohio, St. John v. Alamagordo, etc) and I can stand toe to toe with most of them.
That didn't come overnight, but after a heap of study on this forum and reading dry, sexless rulings in various cases affecting 2a rights.
Okay, so I just positioned myself squarely in the middle between the two sides of the thing.
Point I think is important, isn't whether Torq did the right thing in giving up his I.D., but that everything panned out okay in the long run.
It ain't much use to be right, especially if you're dead right!
One tactic I've learned to use is the very simple three letter word they hate to hear: WHY?
When asked for something like an I.D., I'll now ask WHY.
This puts them to answering questions instead of me. It may not seem significant, but they want to control the coversation, and get all unhinged when the tables get turned on them. If they give some sort of answer, the next step is "Please explain to me your basis for a Terry stop. What is your RAS? What can you articulate as to any crime I have committed, am committing or about to commit?" That's another one that puts them back on their heels. "You do realize that the act of carrying a firearm openly is legal in Colorado, right?" Puts them further behind the 8-ball. Then there is the most excellent one I enjoy to no end: "According to St. John v. Alamagordo, the mere fact that I carry a handgun for my own lawful protection does not provide you, with all due respect officer, any RAS to further detain me."
But one of my absolute favorites is to quote Article 2, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution:
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
Notice, if you will, the part I put in bold letters: That right is not to be called into question.
"Ergo, noble officer of the law, why are you questioning me now? Where is your RAS?"
In much the same way as I have now been avoided by folks selling religion door to door because I can debate the snot out of them, so it is with cops. They want to do a quickie sneak and peak but I cause them to be stuck there for much longer than they like. And get little or nothing in the bargain! Just as with door to door religious types try to break away because I'm pounding hard on their logic circuits, so too do officers dislike being bogged down in a losing battle of wits. This is doubly true if the officer is unarmed in the battle.
Meanwhile, let's go easy on Torquie... he's a good chap and just needs to find his own way of coping with situations like this the best he can.
I do not fault him, nor do I fault others who have a different perspective. I just want to offer a third way of coping, which is passive-aggressive noncompliance.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
