• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Identification

hinch

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
14
Location
, ,
imported post

I know that is isn't against the law to Open Carry, but will you have to show identification to show that you are over the age to carry a weapon if you are stopped by police? I've seen some videos where people have refused to show their identification to cops, and I know Virginia does not have Stop and Identify laws, but is this like driving a vehicle where you have to present identifcation that you are allowed to drive (Drivers License)?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

If you look like a teenager.... You could be held till your age could be confirmed.

If you look 18 or better... no ID needed. It is not against the law to OC so you are not required to show any ID. Unfortunately... this can also allow Felons to carry a gun and get away with it.

I think everyone should have a photo ID in case you do get charged with something. Having ID can get you released on a summons. Even better.... if your injured and taken to the hospital... your family can be contacted if your unconscious.
 

danbus

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
495
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
If you look like a teenager.... You could be held till your age could be confirmed.

If you look 18 or better... no ID needed. It is not against the law to OC so you are not required to show any ID. Unfortunately... this can also allow Felons to carry a gun and get away with it.

I think everyone should have a photo ID in case you do get charged with something. Having ID can get you released on a summons. Even better.... if your injured and taken to the hospital... your family can be contacted if your unconscious.



Very true, but I don't see felons making it a daily practice to exercise rights they don't have.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

danbus wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
If you look like a teenager.... You could be held till your age could be confirmed.

If you look 18 or better... no ID needed. It is not against the law to OC so you are not required to show any ID. Unfortunately... this can also allow Felons to carry a gun and get away with it.

I think everyone should have a photo ID in case you do get charged with something. Having ID can get you released on a summons. Even better.... if your injured and taken to the hospital... your family can be contacted if your unconscious.
Very true, but I don't see felons making it a daily practice to exercise rights they don't have.

How do you know?? :D

It is not written on their face... But I agree that it is not likely to happen.. at least not openly.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

VAopencarry wrote:
Dan, you have to understand where LEO229 is coming from. Everyone is a felon until proven otherwise.........
My motto.... Trust nobody!!

I would love to live in a world where people follow all the rules set by the community. No reason to doubt anyone and feel safe around them.

But even felons still carry guns. Go figure... They broke one law that got them convicted of a felony. Now they are breaking another law by packing their gun.

But I am expected to believe that because someone has a gun... I should, without question, believe he is legal. After all.... felons are not permitted to possess a gun.

Ok... Now I headed back to the real world. :lol:
 

Cue-Ball

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
425
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
imported post

But even felons still carry guns. Go figure... They broke one law that got them convicted of a felony. Now they are breaking another law by packing their gun.
Don't they still have the same rights granted by their creator, and protected by the constitution?

I can understand a criminal who is incarcerated not being allowed to have a gun, but once you've done your time there should be no such restriction. You're supposedly reformed, and should regain all rights and responsibilities.

But I am expected to believe that because someone has a gun... I should, without question, believe he is legal. After all.... felons are not permitted to possess a gun.
Innocent until proven guilty...unless there is probable cause to believe otherwise. Seems fair to me.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:
But even felons still carry guns. Go figure... They broke one law that got them convicted of a felony. Now they are breaking another law by packing their gun.
Don't they still have the same rights granted by their creator, and protected by the constitution?

I can understand a criminal who is incarcerated not being allowed to have a gun, but once you've done your time there should be no such restriction. You're supposedly reformed, and should regain all rights and responsibilities.

But I am expected to believe that because someone has a gun... I should, without question, believe he is legal. After all.... felons are not permitted to possess a gun.
Innocent until proven guilty...unless there is probable cause to believe otherwise. Seems fair to me.

Q1: NO! They no longer have the same rights. They lose that when they commit the felony. They cannot play well with others so they get punished. No Gun For You!!

Q2: This is not court where your innocent or guilty. It is on the street where you could be committing a crime. The job of a LEO is to "investigate" and search for probably cause to arrest you.

This is a dirty, filthy job and EVERYONE hates the LEO because he will dig into your business. If we lived in a perfect world and everyone followed the law.. LEO would not need to do this.

But some people have broken the law and will continue to break the law. If laws mean nothing than we need to just get rid of LEOs and let the people do what they want.

Some laws are being broken right under your nose and you have no clue. It takes a little investigating to know. But some people would have you believe that it is OK to break the law and the LEO has no businesses discovering it.

Shame on those people :banghead:
 

acrimsontide

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
325
Location
, ,
imported post

I guess I'm ignorant so help me understand. What would be the harm in showing a LEO an ID? Sometimes we have to show ID to use a credit card and almost always have to show it to purchase something with a check or to cash a check. I am not trying to be confrontational, I am just seeking to understand.
 

Cue-Ball

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
425
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
imported post

Q1: NO! They no longer have the same rights. They lose that when they commit the felony. They cannot play well with others so they get punished. No Gun For You!!
You're right. Under current "law" felons have very few rights at all. And those that they do have are easily violated because nobody will ever believe a convicted felon over a police officer or "honest citizen".

My point is that felons SHOULDN'T lose their right to bear arms or any other constitutional right once they are released. While you are serving your punishment you will be placed under certain restrictions, which means loss of freedom, loss of the 2nd Amendment, etc. But once you serve your time you should have all of the rights and responsibilities of any other citizen.

Q2: This is not court where your innocent or guilty. It is on the street where you could be committing a crime. The job of a LEO is to "investigate" and search for probably cause to arrest you.
Your ability to investigate ends where my civil rights begin. That's all I ask.

Some laws are being broken right under your nose and you have no clue. It takes a little investigating to know. But some people would have you believe that it is OK to break the law and the LEO has no businesses discovering it.
As far as I'm concerned it is okay to break many of the laws in this country, as the laws themselves are unjust.

If the LEO discovers someone breaking the law, then they have to either pay the piper or have their day in court. But being convicted doesn't make the law any more just. Not that long ago it was against the law for women to vote and for blacks to own land. Legal and right are not one in the same.

I understand that law enforcement has a tough, thankless job. I also understand that all men have certain unalienable rights which the state cannot violate, no matter how many laws they pass. I do thank you for your service, even if we disagree on this issue.
 

Cue-Ball

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
425
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
imported post

acrimsontide wrote:
I guess I'm ignorant so help me understand. What would be the harm in showing a LEO an ID? Sometimes we have to show ID to use a credit card and almost always have to show it to purchase something with a check or to cash a check. I am not trying to be confrontational, I am just seeking to understand.
What would be the harm in letting a police officer search your home? What would be the harm in letting them pull you over and search your vehicle, even though you've committed no crime? What would be the harm in allowing the FBI to search your computer and monitor your internet activity?

The harm is that as soon as you give up a little bit of a right, it makes it that much easier to give up the rest, or others. Look at the state of our country today. The president issues orders for illegal, warrantless wiretaps and virtually nobody cares! The government siezes ISP logs and nobody bats an eye.

It doesn't matter whether or not you have anything to hide. Every citizen has a right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". Handing over your license, when you have no legal obligation to, is just waiving your constitutional rights for no good reason.
 

acrimsontide

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
325
Location
, ,
imported post

Good points, I guess. I guess I still struggle with the ID thing. We show it so many times that it kind of seems natural. Checks, credit cards, to check into a hotel, to rent movies, to buy an alcholic beverage, at a traffic stop by an LEO, to open a safe deposit box....it just seems that there would be no harm in telling someone who we are. Heck we go to a party with 30, 40, or more people and walk around meeting everyone and telling them who we are. The privacy of our identity is very limited to say the least. I have never had an LEO ask for my ID EXCEPT for a couple of traffic stops and one traffic accident so I really haven't had to face the issue when there was not a legal reason for the LEO to know.

Really Privacy as we once knew it is virtually gone anyway. Hell, our names and or number show up on caller ID(if it's just the number the person called can use a reverse phone directory on line to get a name and address and thengooglethe house number and get a map and a satelite view of our property) Oh well I was just curious as to what we would accomplish by refusing ID to an LEO. Thanks for your thoughts.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:
SNIP Every citizen has a right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". Handing over your license, when you have no legal obligation to, is just waiving your constitutional rights for no good reason.
Don't forget to add the word "unreasonable". The word "unreasonable" appears just before "searches" and "seizures."
 

SIGguy229

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
349
Location
Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
imported post

Yes...now go back and re-read your last post with the perspective..."Do any of these people have the power and authority to put me in jail?" or "Do they want to get to know me? or are they waiting until I make some sort incriminating statement that could give them probably cause to make me to spend the night in jail until I get bailed out?"



When you meet people, do you give them your driver's license? or just your name? Greet the LEO accordingly, once they start asking for ID, ask why...and then ask what crime are you suspected to havecommitted and are you under arrest? If not under arrest, tell the officer to have a nice day and walk away.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

acrimsontide wrote:
SNIP What would be the harm in showing a LEO an ID?
Here is how I look at it. Police are supposed to do nothing BUT protect our rights (and render assistance.) If someone tries to murder me, are they not trying to deprive me of life without due process of law? (5th Amend). If someone steals from me, are they not depriving me of property without due process of law? (5th Amendment). If someone kidnaps you, are they not depriving you of liberty without due process of law? (5th Amend.) Is the police officer who stops a drunk driver doing anything more than protecting the life and property of the drunk and everybody else along the drunk's path?In a free society, police are there to protect rights.

Don't believe me? Not sure you agree?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --from the Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine)

Police are part of the government instituted to secure these unalienable rights. Their whole purpose is to secure these unalienable rights. This is more and different than justnotviolatingunalienablerights while they go about their job. It is an arbitrary and artificial distinction tosay thatpolice are not supposed to violatesome rights while protecting other rights (rights not to be murdered, thieved, kidnapped, etc). They're supposed to be protecting all of them.

I've personally had police get out of line with me. We've all seenvideos of police going over the line.

A quick, simple way toremind police of the location of the line is stand fast on your side of theline. Real pro's will understand. All the rest need the lesson.

You're doing them and everybody else a favor by giving them that lesson.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Everytime I look around, I'm surrounded by (mostly) Amerikans who are sooooooooo damned eager to surrender their rights. As a young man, I used to wonder how things got so bad in this country. I wonder no longer.

OK. Well, lets start teaching them. I've already started on friends and relatives. So far, peoplehave beenreceptive.

I'll ask my legislator to sponsor a bill requiring DMV to add a list of rights in the Driver Guide. Maybe start with the 4th Amend right against unreasonable searches and reminding drivers they can refuse consent to searches. Maybe require DMV to hand out a copy to every license renewal. Have them explain rights at checkpoints. That sort of thing.

If we were really serious about this, we'd make it a misdemeanor to comply with an ID request. Rhetorically speaking.
 
Top