House Bill 435

possumboy · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Happy, Happy... Joy, Joy!!!! :lol:

Sorry guys.... I like this proposed change!! Don't hate me.

One thing to remember is.....

"when the surrounding circumstances reasonably require that public safety requires such identification"

This means that the jack booted thugs cannot just walk up and ask you for your "papers" unless there is a good reason.

If this passes, I will show you ID.

On the other hand, many LEO consider OC a safety issue, so without better definitions of the public safety requirement, it does mean a LEO can just walk up and ask because the LEO has a safety concern.

LEO 229 · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

possumboy wrote:

If this passes, I will show you ID.

On the other hand, many LEO consider OC a safety issue, so without better definitions of the public safety requirement, it does mean a LEO can just walk up and ask because the LEO has a safety concern.

I hear your point....

But even without the bill approved... LEOs will still approach with that same mindset and check out a guy who is armed.

We all know that many OCers here have their ownmindset that they will just turn and walk away knowing they do not have to show any ID. We also know that this creates problems unnecessarily.

We have to look beyond the few OCers that may be approached and questioned. I do not believe this isthe intended purpose.Those that OC could still be stopped but this time asked to show ID.

I do understand the inconvenience this may cause.... but until all departments are on track with OC not being a crime.... it will happen anyway.

glocknroll · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

Tess wrote:

While I dislike the idea of this bill, and will urge my lawmakers to oppose it, I also do not see that it says "produce identification documentation". It simply says "identify himself".

To me, that means stating name and city of residence.

What am I missing?

I agree with Tess. Where does it say that we are required to carry identification?

I almost always carry ID on the off chance that I may get hit by a car or something (it happened to me once), and I want my wife to be notified. I don't want to be a John Doe knocked out in the emergency room.

Until a law is passed requiring us to carry identification of some type, this is pretty irrelevant.

glocknroll · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

IANAL, but the way I read this is that the right to remain silent doesn't extend to your name. If requested by a LEO to identify yourself, you will be required to answer the question truthfully, or risk being charged with obstruction.

Again, until they begin requiring us to carry identification papers at all times, this is unenforceable.

TEX1N · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

The new law would only require you to identify yourself to the police, not to SHOW them your ID.

or (ii) who while in a public place or a place open to the public refuses to identify himself at the request of a law-enforcement officer in uniform or a properly identified police officer, when the surrounding circumstances reasonably require that public safety requires such identification,

It's my understanding that current law requires the officer to have reasonable suspicion that you are involved in criminal activity before involuntarily requiring you to identify yourself. Why is that not a good enough standard? Why are we lowering this requirement? This seems like a slippery slope to me.

It's also unconstitutional. The police cannot involuntary stop you, to ask you to ID yourself or for any other reason, without an articulate reasonable suspicion that you are currently involved in criminal activity:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) [emphasis added]

And simple "good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough." . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," only in the discretion of the police. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 97 (1964).

And

Hiibel v. Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) [emphasis added]

In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979), the Court invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop was not based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity. See id., at 51—52. Absent that factual basis for detaining the defendant, the Court held, the risk of “arbitrary and abusive police practices” was too great and the stop was impermissible.

...

Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Court has recognized that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Delgado, supra, at 216; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881 (1975).

Let me quote that paragraph from Terry again, because I feel it strikes at the heart of this issue:

"If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police."

soloban · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

This is a bad idea. LEO's are going to use OC'ing as an excuse to stop and identify everyone they see carrying.

How do you find who your elected delegate is?

doug23838 · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Ich muss Ihre Papiere bitte sehen

Ah... you have no papers? Step into the boxcar.

We will transport you to our "re-education facility" where you will be our guest.

Tess · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

possumboy wrote:

It seems it was a problem with LIS this morning that has been corrected.

This is from this morning:

Frederick, Jeffrey M.

...HB 430 Zoning ordinance; provisions for issuance of inspection...
...HB 431 Title insurance agents; pre-licensing education course.
...HB 432 Arts and cultural districts; adds City of Manassas to t...
...HB 433 Motor vehicle; forfeiture thereof for three or more off...
...HB 434 Defacement of buildings; immunity.
...HB 435 Law-enforcement officer; penalty for failure to identif...
...HB 436 Arrest or summons; charge for misdemeanor at discretion...
...HB 437 Public schools; composite index formula for basic state...
...HB 438 Learner's permits; issuance to minors when school recor...

Since this was corrected, I feel much better about my delegate now!

JACKSON MILLER submitted this? I thought he was one of the good guys. Guess I'll have to write him.

This isn't so much a bad bill as it is a STUPID one.

ETA:
AND he's submitted the bill that would permit an arrest for a misdemeanor.

Maybe it's time to go visit the man.

LEO 229 · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

doug23838 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Ich muss Ihre Papiere bitte sehen

Click to expand...

Ah... you have no papers? Step into the boxcar.

We will transport you to our "re-education facility" where you will be our guest.

Do you speak German?

Box car = Squad car?

TheApostle · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

Godwin's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Many things open Pandora's box. A few bad apples in the LE profession is to be expected. A few bad apples in the gun owner pool is to be expected. To limit police in vital areas like required identification in certain circumstances is as absurd as taking guns away from law abiding owners to prevent crime. This is not "showing your papers." Blanket identification is unconstitutional, but some required ID is needful in certain circumstances.

We have yet to make it to Nazi Germany status. The day we do, we won't be discussing it in an internet forum, but in an underground tunnel.

LEO 229 · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

Well said!!

Citizen · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

Tex1n covered my concerns well.

Also, once the stop and ID occurs, its up to the officer whethercircumstances justified it. You and Iboth know how extensively that will get twisted.

And you and I both know there is absolutely no recourse afterwards. You can't sue--too expensive.The only otherredressis the possibility of having evidence against you thrown out if you can show the circumstances weren't reasonable. But for that to apply, you would have to be arrested and go to trial. Great news there.

Thisbill needs to bedefeated.

kimbercarrier · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

TheApostle wrote:

We have yet to make it to Nazi Germany status. The day we do, we won't be discussing it in an internet forum, but in an underground tunnel.

Yes but, this may be a step in that direction. And just who is to determine you need to be stopped and questioned? Sir we have been having some problems in this area and you look like a problemshow us your ID.

TheApostle · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

We can lament and complain all day, but until other solutions are offered up, its pointless. A need is there: IDing people who may be involved in a crime. A potential to cause law abiding citizens is also there. Now we have to take the Constitution, common sense, and non-prejudicial intelligence to find a solution that works.

Let's find a way to start offering solutions. Anyone can complain. What is a viable alternative that can be suggested to politicians?

Tomahawk · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

TheApostle wrote:

We can lament and complain all day, but until other solutions are offered up, its pointless. A need is there: IDing people who may be involved in a crime. A potential to cause law abiding citizens is also there. Now we have to take the Constitution, common sense, and non-prejudicial intelligence to find a solution that works.

Let's find a way to start offering solutions. Anyone can complain. What is a viable alternative that can be suggested to politicians?

Always about the needs of the state are we to worry...and so the need of the individual to retain his rights is expected to yield to this false call for "reason". I'll stick with Bill Pitt.

Necessity is the plea for every abridgment of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt, Prime Minister of England (1783)

While we're at it, why don't you tell us exactly why the cops need this law, anyway? Last time I checked, the cops in my neighborhood didn't have any problem arresting accused criminals without it. If you want to make a statement about "need" on behalf of the government the burden ofproof is on you.

kerchaulk · Jan 8, 2008

imported post

kimbercarrier wrote:

TheApostle wrote:

We have yet to make it to Nazi Germany status. The day we do, we won't be discussing it in an internet forum, but in an underground tunnel.

Click to expand...

Yes but, this may be a step in that direction. And just who is to determine you need to be stopped and questioned? Sir we have been having some problems in this area and you look like a problemshow us your ID.

How close are we to Nazi Germany status? How far is too far? "Public safety" is to general of a term. We have all read, or experienced, the stories of those being stopped while OCing (legal in VA). If a LEO deems thatit isnecessary and we do not have "ID" to show; how long can they "detain"? And if we cannot, are we to be held indefinetly?

LEO 229 · Jan 9, 2008

imported post

I think the people are tired of being victims and know that criminals that are getting ready to act are slipping past so that they can try again to create a victim.

If the people want criminals to be caught... the police need to be able to identify them.

One way is to know the person standing before you. You have all mentioned how easy it is for a wanted criminal to get away.... "Am I under arrest? Am I free to leave? See ya cop, I'm walking!"

The cop has reason to suspect criminal mischief was there but no crimehad occurred.

There are abuses everywhere in government. But that does not mean that everyone abuses it. You will not escape it.

So either you want criminals to walk free... or you want the police to catch them.

Which one is it?

Thundar · Jan 9, 2008

imported post

I have read the proposed legislation carefully and the related threads to this in Nevada, where there is a stop and identify law. I do not believe that this law would require anybody to show I.D. I believe that when asked by law enforcement, youwould be required toprovide your name. LEOs may want your papers, but this piece of bad legislation does not give them the right to demand them.

Doug Huffman · Jan 9, 2008

imported post

Thundar wrote:

I have read the proposed legislation carefully and the related threads to this in Nevada, where there is a stop and identify law. I do not believe that this law would require anybody to show I.D. I believe that when asked by law enforcement, youwould be required toprovide your name. LEOs may want your papers, but this piece of bad legislation does not give them the right to demand them.

I wonder if the law enforcement agencies/representatives will do due diligence and possibly come to the same conclusion or will they count on "ignorance of the law is no excuse" to advance their purposes?

skidmark · Jan 9, 2008

imported post

Enough already with the Nazi Germany references! We are not even close to that yet, and as much as I disagree with Leo229's right (who says he has any rights?) to trample on me with his jackboots, I'm not ready to hang him to the nearest tree - yet.:lol:

Moving this back to open carry - I'll be modifying all my holsters by creating a pouch on the inside of them that just fits my Va DL. Then, when Leo229 asks me for identification I will tell him where it's located and that in compliance with his new most favoritest law I going to get my Va DL for him to look at.

Catch 22! :what: Either I comply with the lawful instruction of Leo229 by removing my firearm from its holster, or I am brandishing. Which will he pick? Decisions, decisions. What's a cop to do?:banghead:

You can require me to carry papers, but not where I carry them!

stay safe.

skidmark

House Bill 435

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran