Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: States that require a permit to open carry..

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Now first of all, I understand that the reason you should bother is because it is legally required, and I am by NO WAY arguing that point. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that anyone SHOULD break the law. This is just a hypothetical situation posed for conversation:

    Ok, so we know that it is illegal for a LEO to stop a person driving a car JUST TO CHECK if they are indeed licensed to drive said car. For the LEO to stop anyone, they must have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS). With this is mind, you should theoretically be able to drive and ALMOSTNEVER be checked for a license, as long as you never break any laws. Obviously, there are special circumstances like getting in an accident OR your vehicle matching that of a suspect, so this why I said almost.

    This same theory should be able to be applied to openly carrying where a permit is required, as well. If one is breaking no laws, therefore not giving a LEO RAS, then there should be, under almost all circumstances, no reason for you to be stopped and asked for said permit. This obviously is NOT suggest because, again, if you happen to fit the description of a suspect, or there is another issue, you might very well be arrested and charged.

    Anyway I've also heard that there is a law that says something to the extent of any evidence that is collected illegally cannot be used against you. If this is correct, and you were illegally stopped and asked for your permit (or drivers license) at which time you didn't have one, couldn't you then argue that that fact was collected illegally and therefore cannot be held against you?

    Just some random thoughts I thought I'd share....

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    If a state has a set of circumstances under which open carry would be deemed illegal, then seeing somebody open carry IS reasonable suspicion unfortunately. Of course I believe that shall not be infringed means exactly that.

    Also, I don't get along with that "fits the description" crap. According to who? Unless a policeman sees it, for all they know, it's just one person SAYING something about another and not good enough to hassle a law-abiding citizen. If we say it is, then anybody can say anything about anybody else and get them hassled by police. In other words, use the police as an weapon against others. Of course I expect I'll have the minority opinion on this point. I cannot justify even minutely depleting the rights of everybody on the off chance it might catch one more criminal.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    If a state has a set of circumstances under which open carry would be deemed illegal, then seeing somebody open carry IS reasonable suspicion unfortunately. Of course I believe that shall not be infringed means exactly that. *snip*
    I think that's the point. If driving is not RS to checking for a drivers liscense, then carrying cannot be RS to check for a carry liscense.


  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    I think that's the point. If driving is not RS to checking for a drivers liscense, then carrying cannot be RS to check for a carry liscense.
    Hmmm, interesting point. Let's presume though for a moment that you were first seized by an LEO pursuant to reasonable articulable suspicion, e.g., driving as the driver with broken tailight, jawalking, etc. It seems reasonable then in that circumstance a license could be demandedif the state required a license to OC.

    But as for simply walking down the street - I gota think about that one.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    Demarest wrote:
    If a state has a set of circumstances under which open carry would be deemed illegal, then seeing somebody open carry IS reasonable suspicion unfortunately. Of course I believe that shall not be infringed means exactly that. *snip*
    I think that's the point. If driving is not RS to checking for a drivers liscense, then carrying cannot be RS to check for a carry liscense.
    You just threw context completely out the window. I very specifically included the key to the RS argument, which is that the action being observed must be criminal. Driving isn't criminal, which is why it is not tantamount in and of itself to the checking for a driver's license.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    What about license checkpoints. Are they illegal?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    FogRider wrote:
    Demarest wrote:
    If a state has a set of circumstances under which open carry would be deemed illegal, then seeing somebody open carry IS reasonable suspicion unfortunately. Of course I believe that shall not be infringed means exactly that. *snip*
    I think that's the point. If driving is not RS to checking for a drivers liscense, then carrying cannot be RS to check for a carry liscense.
    You just threw context completely out the window. I very specifically included the key to the RS argument, which is that the action being observed must be criminal. Driving isn't criminal, which is why it is not tantamount in and of itself to the checking for a driver's license.
    How is that out of context? Driving without a liscense IS illigal (on a public road anyway) but I can't be stopped just to check if I have one.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    What about license checkpoints. Are they illegal?
    Never heard of a license checkpoints. I've heard of DUI checkpoints. In my opinion, all of the above would be illegal. We do not live in a police state, we have the right to be secure in our person and possessions, and they lack probable cause.

  9. #9
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    Driving isn't criminal, which is why it is not tantamount in and of itself to the checking for a driver's license.
    I think you've hit the nail on the head Dan. Thats my take on it too.

    If state law said "driving a car on a public road is prohibited"and then exempted "licensed drivers" that would be a different story.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    What about license checkpoints. Are they illegal?
    Never heard of a license checkpoints. I've heard of DUI checkpoints. In my opinion, all of the above would be illegal. We do not live in a police state, we have the right to be secure in our person and possessions, and they lack probable cause.
    There was a video about a guy getting harassed at one of these for not providing ID when asked by the LEO. Is it illegal for them to stop everyone, or a random interval of people, and have a conversation with them? No, it's not (whether it is right is a different story). Should you be able to tell them plainly you don't wish to stop and chat and are going to be on your way? YES. They don't have RAS, so they legally can't demand they see your driver's license, ID, etc. Can they ask for it? Sure...I could stop you and ask for your ID, too. Doesn't mean you have to give it to me, or them.

    The only DUI checkpoints I've ever been to weren't that bad. They were stopping every car coming over the bridge off of the bar and club riddled island and saying "hey, how ya doin tonight? Have you had anything to drink tonight? Ok, have a good night". They didn't ask for anything else until they had legitimate RAS, i.e. smell of alcohol, appearance of intoxication, or vehicular violations like lights, tags, etc. Now I'm not saying it is right for police to do this...I'm not saying it's wrong either. I'm just saying that in a situation where like 3 our of 5 drivers are drunk at that time of night, I'm not going to push the subject.

    Driving isn't criminal, which is why it is not tantamount in and of itself to the checking for a driver's license.
    I think you've hit the nail on the head Dan. Thats my take on it too.

    If state law said "driving a car on a public road is prohibited"and then exempted "licensed drivers" that would be a different story.
    Based on the theory that we can do whatever we want unless there's a law against it, then you're saying we should be able to drive w/o a license, since the law doesn't say the act is prohibited.. I believe that driving on a public roadway IS illegal with the exception of those who are licensed to do so. I'll see what I can find on those sorts of laws after I get rid of this cold...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    The only DUI checkpoints I've ever been to weren't that bad. They were stopping every car coming over the bridge off of the bar and club riddled island and saying "hey, how ya doin tonight? Have you had anything to drink tonight? Ok, have a good night". They didn't ask for anything else until they had legitimate RAS, i.e. smell of alcohol, appearance of intoxication, or vehicular violations like lights, tags, etc. Now I'm not saying it is right for police to do this...I'm not saying it's wrong either. I'm just saying that in a situation where like 3 our of 5 drivers are drunk at that time of night, I'm not going to push the subject.
    I'll say that it's wrong. Just because it ensnares a good number of people who MIGHT hurt somebody doesn't mean it's right or that it's okay. They will take your complacency to mean they have permission at a later date to engage in some confiscation of rights to ensnare YOU illegally too. I'm never comfortable with people that are okay with the erosion or our rights so long as it doesn't sting them.

    DreQo wrote:
    Based on the theory that we can do whatever we want unless there's a law against it, then you're saying we should be able to drive w/o a license, since the law doesn't say the act is prohibited.. I believe that driving on a public roadway IS illegal with the exception of those who are licensed to do so.
    They want you to believe this, but in fact, it is not. This country was established as a free state. The requirement to show papers is an act of a police state. We have the liberty to travel freely without having to ask permission or, as it's really designed for, lining Cesar's pockets for the "privilege" to do so.


  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    DreQo wrote:
    The only DUI checkpoints I've ever been to weren't that bad. They were stopping every car coming over the bridge off of the bar and club riddled island and saying "hey, how ya doin tonight? Have you had anything to drink tonight? Ok, have a good night". They didn't ask for anything else until they had legitimate RAS, i.e. smell of alcohol, appearance of intoxication, or vehicular violations like lights, tags, etc. Now I'm not saying it is right for police to do this...I'm not saying it's wrong either. I'm just saying that in a situation where like 3 our of 5 drivers are drunk at that time of night, I'm not going to push the subject.
    I'll say that it's wrong. Just because it ensnares a good number of people who MIGHT hurt somebody doesn't mean it's right or that it's okay. They will take your complacency to mean they have permission at a later date to engage in some confiscation of rights to ensnare YOU illegally too. I'm never comfortable with people that are okay with the erosion or our rights so long as it doesn't sting them.

    DreQo wrote:
    Based on the theory that we can do whatever we want unless there's a law against it, then you're saying we should be able to drive w/o a license, since the law doesn't say the act is prohibited.. I believe that driving on a public roadway IS illegal with the exception of those who are licensed to do so.
    They want you to believe this, but in fact, it is not. This country was established as a free state. The requirement to show papers is an act of a police state. We have the liberty to travel freely without having to ask permission or, as it's really designed for, lining Cesar's pockets for the "privilege" to do so.
    I agree that letting them get away with it now is just letting them get away with more later. However, that specific activity has been proven to greatly reduce the number of intoxicated drivers which, in this area, is a big problem. I think when a better solution is discovered, it should be utilized immediately, but for the time being they ARE doing a whole lot of good in that aspect.

    As far as the being free to travel as you will bit....IF we had said liberty, then we wouldn't need a driver's license or registration or all that crap. Do we have the right to said liberty? Yes. Do we have it at the moment? No. Anyway that's a whole other discussion. Lets get back to the topic.
    If a state has a set of circumstances under which open carry would be deemed illegal, then seeing somebody open carry IS reasonable suspicion unfortunately. Of course I believe that shall not be infringed means exactly that.
    You're right, this IS unfortunate, but it does seem logical. Can this be cited, or is this just a reasonable assumption? I'd hate to think that when I go back home to MN and get my permit, that I will legally have to stop and be detained by any and every LEO that wants to check to see if I'm allowed to carry. THAT doesn't seem logical to me...:?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Those willing to trade liberty for safety deserve neither.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    Those willing to trade liberty for safety deserve neither.
    You gonna make a point or are you just gonna spit out random quotes?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    I'll say that it's wrong. Just because it ensnares a good number of people who MIGHT hurt somebody doesn't mean it's right or that it's okay. They will take your complacency to mean they have permission at a later date to engage in some confiscation of rights to ensnare YOU illegally too. I'm never comfortable with people that are okay with the erosion or our rights so long as it doesn't sting them.
    When the police came for the drunk drivers,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a drunk driver.

    When they locked up the open carriers,
    I remained silent;
    I was not an open carrier.

    When they came for the concealed carriers,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a concealed carrier.

    When they came for the hunters,
    I remained silent;
    I wasn't a hunter.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.

    This is WHY slippery-slope politics is BAD, people.

    (Apologies to Pastor Martin Niem├Âller)


    (Why do I get the feeling I'm about to have to explain this in detail to some arse-hat?)
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    Of course I expect I'll have the minority opinion on this point. I cannot justify even minutely depleting the rights of everybody on the off chance it might catch one more criminal.
    Welcome to the minority.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Now hold on a second. That poem is ridiculous, because driving drunk IS ILLEGAL!!, and incredibly dangerous. Look, please let me know what part of this situation violates your rights or breaks any law:

    LEO asks you how you are doing this evening, and asks if you have been drinking. He looks for obvious signs of intoxication while you respond. He doesn't find any, so he tells you to be safe and have a good night.

    If you guys can change my opinion and convince me that this activity is wrong, I invite you to do so. Please don't start accusing me of being hypocritical and not worthy of freedom. If I blindly held to my beliefs, I wouldn't give a crap what you say. I'm trying to have a discussion here.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    (Why do I get the feeling I'm about to have to explain this in detail to some arse-hat?)
    :quirky

    DreQo wrote:
    Now hold on a second.┬* That poem is ridiculous, because driving drunk IS ILLEGAL!!, and incredibly dangerous.
    Wow. Way to focus in with laser-like intensity on ONE DAMN PART of that post.

    DreQo wrote:
    LEO asks you how you are doing this evening, and asks if you have been drinking.┬* He looks for obvious signs of intoxication while you respond.┬* He doesn't find any, so he tells you to be safe and have a good night.
    Where did this LEO come from? Is he sitting in my house? Is he hanging out with me at Luigi's? Is he sitting in the back seat talking to me while I'm riding shotgun?



    DreQo wrote:
    If you guys can change my opinion and convince me that this activity is wrong, I invite you to do so.
    No offense, but from this post, I can only presume you mean drunk driving, which I seriously doubt anyone is.

    My POINT was....

    Go read "First They Came", the original version, not the one I adapted to fit this thread. Think about it for a few minutes (no, really), then go from there. It's easy to find, just Google it.

    And by the way, "that poem" was about the German public's inaction during Nazi purging of undesirables during.

    Godwin's Law does not apply here, because slippery slope was brought up first, and "First They Came" is EXACTLY WHY slippery slope legislature is dangerous.

    Again, slippery slope.

    Stopping people for no reason because people might be drunk driving is ok. It's for public safety, right? You're not against safety. It's perfectly reasonable to stop people without articulable suspicion.

    (And if driving on road a is reasonable suspicion, then why not road B?)

    *cut* *cut*

    So why not stop people because they are open carrying? I mean, we're already stopping people at sobriety check points, and that's for safety reasons, right? That's not unreasonable to stop people that are OCing. They could be crazy, or drunk, or a criminal. We should stop people that are OCing for public safety.

    I mean, we already stop people that are driving for no cause. Stopping people for OCing is a reasonable comprimise to keep people safe. You are a reasonable person, right?

    *cut* *cut*

    Hey, that guy is printing. We'd better stop him and make sure he has a proper CC permit, he might be a criminal, or crazy, or drunk, or he might not have his permit on him.

    I mean, we already stop people that are driving with no cause, and we stop people when they OC with no cause. Stopping people for CCing is a reasonable comprimise to keep people safe. You are a reasonable person, right?

    Look at how much public safety we have now!

    *cut* *cut*

    Hey! That guy has a kid that's throwing a tantrum because he won't buy that kid some candy. We'd better go make sure he's not being abusive otherwise. Let's send in child services.

    After all, it's for the child's safety. That's a reasonable comprimise, right? I mean, you're not FOR child abuse, are you?

    *cut* *cut*

    Do you see the pattern DreQo? It may not go exactly like that, or in that order, but that's what saying "Oh, that's a reasonable violation of my rights" leads to.

    If it's reasonable to stop you without cause on Street A, why not Street B.

    Later, Street C, then E, then Q.

    When all the streets have check points on them, what will be the next target?

    (Those were more of those "1000 tiny cuts", by the way)
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    I wasn't talking about drunk driving, I was talking about the check points, and I am familiar with the "First They Came". The reason I lasered in on that point is that the original refers to arresting people for no real reason. Driving drunk, on the other hand, IS a real reason to arrest them.

    Anyway my point is that there is nothing wrong with cops asking you questions. You SHOULD be able to ignore them and go on your merry way, however. The problem is when LEOs use their position of authority to make people think that they are required to answer their questions.

    As this thread has gone on, I've put more thought into the check points. The act of a LEO having a conversation with you is NOT illegal or unconstitutional, as long as you are free to leave whenever you'd like. The act of a LEO looking for evidence that a crime is being committed is not illegal or unconstitutional, as long as he's not violating your privacy.

    Is the act of setting up a check-point and stopping people as they drive through tohave consensual conversationillegal or unconstitutional? I'm asking because I am undecided. We are assuming that you are free to refuse any conversation and continue on through. This is what I'm trying to discuss, here.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    Is the act of setting up a check-point and stopping people as they drive through to┬*have consensual conversation┬*illegal or unconstitutional?┬* I'm asking because I am undecided.
    You've answered your own question, sir.

    DreQo wrote:
    You SHOULD be able to ignore them and go on your merry way, however.┬* The problem is when LEOs use their position of authority to make people think that they are required to answer their questions.
    It's reasonable to presume you are required to answer questions when stopped by the police at a check point. Furthermore, the stop is without probable cause. Remember what I said about them being able to stop you on Street A, then why not Street B, then C, et cetera.

    DreQo wrote:
    The act of a LEO having a conversation with you is NOT illegal or unconstitutional, as long as you are free to leave whenever you'd like.
    Aye, but would YOU just start driving forward without being cleared after being stopped (detained?) at one of these check points? You're certainly not free to just LEAVE the check point any time you wish. You have to have a verbal permission slip from the officer before you can continue about your business.

    DreQo wrote:
    We are assuming that you are free to refuse any conversation and continue on through.┬* This is what I'm trying to discuss, here.
    I'm pretty sure that trying to breeze through a check point without stopping would not go over well.


    Oh, and....
    DreQo wrote:
    The act of a LEO looking for evidence that a crime is being committed is not illegal or unconstitutional, as long as he's not violating your privacy.
    Mmm, if by "looking for evidence that a crime is being committed", you mean stopping you without reasonable suspicion, looking in your vehicle, and questioning you about your personal business, yes, yes it is unconstitutional.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Ok, you're twisting things around, but I'm gonna try to get something out of that. What you have said is that you're NOT allowed to drive through and refuse to converse at a normal check point. I think we all agree that this would then be an illegal stop w/o reasonable articulable suspicion. If this is how ALL current check-points are operated, then yes, they are illegal and unconstitutional.

    The question, again, is whether or not it is illegal and unconstitutional to set up a check point and ask that people consensually answer questions, not stopping them if they refuse. THAT is the only question I'm asking right now. I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm asking what you, and everyone else, thinks...

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    No, that's... how every check point I've ever been through has been.

    You drive up to it, there's a LEO standing in the middle of the road, blocking you from proceeding, and another comes over and starts asking you about your personal business.

    You're not free to leave until the LEO at your window tells the LEO standing in front of your car you're free to go.

    LEO at your window won't wave LEO 2 away until he feels like it.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    Which would be detaining without probable cause. it's the same situation as this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI

    Which I'm sure you've all seen before. He was not allowed to leave. i'm sure if he would have started walking away, they would've tackled him and arrested him for "evading police." My father is a cop, and I respect him for everything he does, but at some point, I just can't take it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    The stopping of every single car is not probable cause and violates a citizen's Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their person and property.

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    DreQo Wrote:
    Based on the theory that we can do whatever we want unless there's a law against it, then you're saying we should be able to drive w/o a license, since the law doesn't say the act is prohibited.. I believe that driving on a public roadway IS illegal with the exception of those who are licensed to do so. I'll see what I can find on those sorts of laws after I get rid of this cold...
    Please see attached.....
    Attached Files Attached Files

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •