davidmcbeth
Banned
snirp88:
Please do NOT take that ^^^ poster's "advice."
sarcasm .... duh
snirp88:
Please do NOT take that ^^^ poster's "advice."
sarcasm .... duh
Just go to 1001 ft, and leave the gun on the sidewalk while you zip into the school...they want safety? They got it.
Ah. I hear a lot of people refer to CO as a stop and ID state and what they mean is that if LE asks you for ID for any reason you have to provide it. That they do not have to have RAS in order to demand ID. I thought you may have been stating the same thing.
BLUF: That statutes appear to read, if the officer demands ID (and whatever else the law/statute requires) if you have ID available, you produce. Along with answering the two or three questions the statue requires (save the 5th amendment exclusion, of course... but that is a different debate/topic altogether.)
It is interesting to note, the statute proscribes providing a SSN.
I can not believe that in this day and age, 47 years after Terry v Ohio, people still equate stop and ID with "papers please."
Colorado law explicitly states you can carry a gun onto school grounds in your vehicle.
C.R.S. 18-12-214
(3) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; except that:
(a) A permittee may have a handgun on the real property of the public school so long as the handgun remains in his or her vehicle and, if the permittee is not in the vehicle, the handgun is in a compartment within the vehicle and the vehicle is locked;
I don't understand your point. Are you speaking of the Colorado Legislature who made the law requiring us to produce the I.D., or are you referring to us?
Jon
Maybe I'm mis-reading your intent sir but you seem to be downplaying the RS part of stop and id.
OC is NOT RS or PC
CSR 16-3-103 only apply to illegal activities. If you are not engaged in said acts, you are not required to produce ID and that includes anyone walking down any street at any time, anywhere in the US.
PC is not required by the statute I don't believe. (probable cause).
16-3-103. Stopping of suspect
(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.
Except that it does require PC:
Therefore, does not apply to LAC.
LAC=law abiding citizen
I'm not going to sit here and split hairs with you over pc and rs. They are just varying degrees of the same thing and neither allow cops to demand id of someone that's not breaking the law.
Stop and ID does not mean a cop can just stop anyone and demand their papers like n. Korea
So when you imply that cops don't need pc they only need rs it comes off to me as disingenuous.
True...
But if we need further confirmation of that concept, we need look no further than the words of contemporary sage Vanilla Ice:
"Anything less than the best is a felony."
;-)
Warned him because as a young poster (only 5 posts) he may not have discovered (as most of the rest of us have) how inane your comments are...
That's RAS my friend... Not PC....Except that it does require PC:
Therefore, does not apply to LAC.
That's RAS my friend... Not PC....
True...
But if we need further confirmation of that concept, we need look no further than the words of contemporary sage Vanilla Ice:
"Anything less than the best is a felony."
;-)
...sniped
Sir, take my hand and we will walk thru this together...
I could find Terry v Ohio and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada for relevant precedent. The supreme court appears silent, I've not found anything.
The statue does not require probable cause. It maintains that the officer has reasonable suspicion.
Jon
My understanding on this topic is that Hibel- requires that I verbally identify myself by name to the officer. The Colorado statute requires that I verbally give him my address (not date of birth). And that Terry- and Miranda- allows that I do not have to answer any further questions at all (including date of birth).