House Bill 435

imported post

skidmark wrote:

Enough already with the Nazi Germany references! We are not even close to that yet, stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

Skidmark is correct, we have picked on the Nazi Germany era enough,If this law is passed, we areon a slippery slide into....

Not Nazis butstill Goose stepping Facist Morons...

imported post

"Picked on" perhaps but not learned from the era. I still don't have my gelber jüdischer Stern smilie next to my name. Anony Mouses are still enabled to post wildly.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

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.

Click to expand...

I read it the same Thundar. I raised the question on page 1 but nobody has opted to answer yet....where in the proposed legislation does it state that we would be required to produce a physical form of identification? Has anyone thought of asking Miller for any type of clarification? May be a good first step in understanding his intent so we can work towards a solution as proposed by TheApostle!

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

I read it the same Thundar. I raised the question on page 1 but nobody has opted to answer yet....where in the proposed legislation does it state that we would be required to produce a physical form of identification? Has anyone thought of asking Miller for any type of clarification? May be a good first step in understanding his intent so we can work towards a solution as proposed by TheApostle!

Click to expand...

I read it that way too.. (don't have to produce ID just have to tell them name) to my thinking there is no difference, and this doesn't make it any more palatable or benign..the whole point is this bill gives the police power they DO NOT need. I.E.to STOP AND ID anyone who they believe is a threat of any kind. I believe I will get me a Jewish star and Wear it on my holster... in protest if this bill is passed into law...

My ancestors FLED Nazi Occupied Austria and came to America, they hid their Jewishness and made a new life here in the land of the free!!

And now America is sinking into Fascism...I believe we are in dire straits, I referenece the Patriot Act as proof... a sublimeexample of Facist BS..:banghead:







The yellow badge

imported post

I beleive it has already been said in this thread that this law does not explicitly say that you have to produce papers, just that you have to identify yourself to an inquiring LEO. However, it does not explicitly say you don't; so you cannot ignore the implications. At very least, this proposed law should explicitly say what is required to identify yourself.

Here is a question; In VA, do you have to have an personal ID? A VADL is required to operate a motor vehicle, nothing else. But if I lived in a rural town, I may not have the need. So unless the state requires you to have to carry papers everywhere you go, passing this law would be provocational at best. Would people without a VADL be required to carry around their birth certificate?

If you are not required to carry an ID, then how can an officer have the authority to require you "produce" said identification. Given the ambiguious notion of "...reasonably require that public safety requires such identification", this law is a recipe for trouble.

Some had said that with or without this law, some LEOs will still stop a OC'er anyways. I would argue that this Law would encourage it more and give legality to do it.

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

I read it the same Thundar. I raised the question on page 1 but nobody has opted to answer yet....where in the proposed legislation does it state that we would be required to produce a physical form of identification? Has anyone thought of asking Miller for any type of clarification? May be a good first step in understanding his intent so we can work towards a solution as proposed by TheApostle!

Click to expand...

I have asked Jackson Miller to clarify his rationale, and have pointed out to him various inconsistencies.

I'll post ifand when I get a reply.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

There is always something that a few are going to abuse. This "paper check" can also be abused but the possibility of the minor abuse is outweighed by those that will use it properly.

Out of the 850,000 cops out there....  there are not that many abusing their position. You have to have a bad apple in the bushel.

Click to expand...

I really hoped you wouldn't say this. The fact that you sincerely believe this is exactly why we CANNOT pass these kinds of laws. I hate to say this, but based on what you just said I truly fear that you might be among the first to abuse this power, and worse than doing so to ask some woman out, you will do so for even more inappropriate reasons, convinced that you're doing the right thing.

The way the law is written, you already have too much authority. Give you more, and no matter under what circumstance it is used, it will be misused. If a power cannot be properly used, yet you are convinced you will not misuse it, is there any potential for proper use on your behalf? Obviously, there cannot be.

Besides, you don't need any more help to do your job; the government you work for exists to protect our rights, not to make your job easy.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

We have to look beyond the few OCers that may be approached and questioned. I do not believe this is the intended purpose.

Click to expand...

Don't go down that road, LEO. It's a steep grade paved with bacon grease.

Regardless of how a bill or law is intended, how it is and can be used is the issue.

I mean, you wouldn't want them to pass a law saying that you have to allow random ATF raids (not inspections, RAIDS) on anyone owning an MP-5, now would you?



LEO 229 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

So, shouldn't we work on ensuring proper training for our protectors and guardians instead of potentially causing more conflict?

I see nothing good coming of, or after this bill.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

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

Click to expand...

...without putting undue burden on the everyday man.

LEO 229 wrote:

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!"

Click to expand...

Actually, we've mentioned how easy it is for anyone to get away. This includes people that have done nothing wrong, to a greater extent, as well.

LEO 229 wrote:

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

Click to expand...

I thought that was already covered under "reasonable articulable suspicion".

LEO 229 wrote:

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

Click to expand...

So we should create more potential for abuse?

From your tone, it almost sounds as though you are passively admitting this will lead to more abuse of the justice system. (speculation!)

LEO 229 wrote:

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

Which one is it?

Click to expand...

Penalty Flag: false dilemma.

Rejection of this bill will not suddenly cause thousands of hardened criminals to roam the streets freely, pilaging and raping the countryside at will.

Yes, the police are supposed to catch criminals, but they are also not supposed to bother people not involved in a crime, as well.

Again, reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS?) is already covered. This law is, at best, redundant, at worst, a stream of potential abuse waiting to happen.

Remember, not all of us have a "get out of most situations free" card.

imported post

I'd like to share with you J. Miller's phone numbers. Although I already had his Richmond number, I believe I caught his cell or private number when he called begging for my vote.

Richmond office: 804.698.1050 Local NoVA number: 703.615.7340. Better than a letter or email, voice contact lets you 'persuade' him by responding to his positions on the issue. You may persuade him to kill his own bills. The only thing better is face to face, and I believe you will also get your chance on MLK day. Hopefully, after hearing all your voices personally, he will pull them before then.

Yes, this is my first post, but I've been lurking here for a very long time. I feel like I already know almost all of you regular posters. I'm not likely to post much as I'm not 'code savvy', but I've learned quite a bit from you all. Thank you.

imported post

withdrawn off topic

imported post

This thread seems to be going in weird circles. I agree with Abno. I also think this bill will become an unconstitutional law if it allows police to involuntarily detain people, for the purpose of identification, without reasonable suspicion of a crime. If reasonable suspicion is still the benchmark to be used for detaining a suspect, then this law is redundant and unnecessary at best.

I already covered this in my above post, and I had some fairly strong references to support my views. I'm guessing that it's easier to ignore my point of view than to try and produce evidence to the contrary...

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

As I read this proposed law I know that there is no requirement to produce a document, just to state your name to the officer, but I have my blue and white "HELLO my name is........" card ready.

imported post

TEX1N wrote:

This thread seems to be going in weird circles. I agree with Abno. I also think this bill will become an unconstitutional law if it allows police to involuntarily detain people, for the purpose of identification, without reasonable suspicion of a crime. If reasonable suspicion is still the benchmark to be used for detaining a suspect, then this law is redundant and unnecessary at best.

I already covered this in my above post, and I had some fairly strong references to support my views. I'm guessing that it's easier to ignore my point of view than to try and produce evidence to the contrary...

Click to expand...

I don't think you are being ignored (unless you mean by any LEO's present). I think a lack of objection to your posts suggests tacit agreement by those who have read them.

imported post

skidmark wrote:

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:

....

Click to expand...

I have enough rope burns now from being stung up so much already.. Once more is not going to be so bad.

imported post

Quietus wrote:

I beleive it has already been said in this thread that this law does not explicitly say that you have to produce papers, just that you have to identify yourself to an inquiring LEO. However, it does not explicitly say you don't; so you cannot ignore the implications. At very least, this proposed law should explicitly say what is required to identify yourself.

Here is a question; In VA, do you have to have an personal ID? A VADL is required to operate a motor vehicle, nothing else. But if I lived in a rural town, I may not have the need. So unless the state requires you to have to carry papers everywhere you go, passing this law would be provocational at best. Would people without a VADL be required to carry around their birth certificate?

If you are not required to carry an ID, then how can an officer have the authority to require you "produce" said identification. Given the ambiguious notion of "...reasonably require that public safety requires such identification", this law is a recipe for trouble.

Some had said that with or without this law, some LEOs will still stop a OC'er anyways. I would argue that this Law would encourage it more and give legality to do it.

Click to expand...

How many people here have been stopped and asked for their name already in a completely voluntary situation?

How would things change if the LEO could require you to provide your name? Do you really think that the LEO has been holding back from stopping those that OC because he knew they could walk away?

You are kidding yourself if you really believe that cops are going to begin stopping everyone that OCs just because they could be compelled to provide their name now. I have viewed many posts about "LEO saw my armed and nodded" or "LEO saw my gun and said nice piece!"

The only thing that is going to happen is that those people that are doing any activity that is not criminal but is suspicious or are just short of any PC for an arrest will have to identify who they are.

There is going to be no change except that Danbus would know that he has to identify who he is now and then be sent on his way.

If you are observed doing something suspicious... and you are asked for your name.. big deal!! Whaa! I was asked my name!! This took up two minutes of my life that I could have been texting my friends. Whaa!!

People here bitching and they have NEVER even been stopped before.

imported post

LEO229,

There are times I would even call it borderline anarchy that is advocated.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

There is always something that a few are going to abuse. This "paper check" can also be abused but the possibility of the minorabuse is outweighed by those that will use it properly.

Out of the 850,000 cops out there.... there are not that many abusing their position. You have to have a bad apple in the bushel.

Click to expand...

I really hoped you wouldn't say this. The fact that you sincerely believe this is exactly why we CANNOT pass these kinds of laws. I hate to say this, but based on what you just said I truly fear that you might be among the first to abuse this power, and worse than doing so to ask some woman out, you will do so for even more inappropriate reasons, convinced that you're doing the right thing.

The way the law is written, you already have too much authority. Give you more, and no matter under what circumstance it is used, it will be misused. If a power cannot be properly used, yet you are convinced you will not misuse it, is there any potential for proper use on your behalf? Obviously, there cannot be.

Besides, you don't need any more help to do your job; the government you work for exists to protect our rights, not to make your job easy.

Click to expand...

Oh Please...!! You have not been on this board long enough to believe anything yet. Please sit back and observe a little longer before you post anything else. You obviously do not know me. :lol:

Just because something will be abused by a small number of people is no reason to get rid of it. A small number of people usefirearms to kill others... Do you suggest we get rid of firearms?

So if you are convinced that you will never use a gun to kill someone... there must be the potential for proper use on your behalf. Obviously, there cannot be.

Who is talking about making a job "easier" anyway. We are talking about having the ability to know who we are talking to when the personis involved in suspicious activity and there is a valid reason this needs to be known.

Would you have us chase this unknown guy on foot, bike, and in a car all night and day until we find something that will allow us to know who he is? Do you want us to waste valuable tax dollars paying for man power to try to identify a guy who may not even be involved in a crime?

imported post

TheApostle wrote:

LEO229,

There are times I would even call it borderline anarchy that is advocated.

Click to expand...

I don't think it anarchy to want to choose to be able to exercise your rights.

I really think most would provide our names or even ID's if we thought it would be helpful in an investigation. The quicker I am eliminated as a suspect, the quicker OJ can find the real killer.

We just want the right to refuse to ID ourselves to the few, true "jackbooted thugs" who would demand our ID just for fun, or because he was bored, or didn't like the way we looked.

imported post

AbNo wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

We have to look beyond the few OCers that may be approached and questioned. I do not believe this isthe intended purpose.

Click to expand...

Don't go down that road, LEO. It's a steep grade paved with bacon grease.

Regardless of how a bill or law is intended, how it is and can be used is the issue.

I mean, you wouldn't want them to pass a law saying that you have to allow random ATF raids (not inspections, RAIDS) on anyone owning an MP-5, now would you?



LEO 229 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

So, shouldn't we work on ensuring proper training for our protectors and guardians instead of potentially causing more conflict?

I see nothing good coming of, or after this bill.

Click to expand...

The ATF is welcome to stop by my house anytime they like. I am in compliance and have no need to worry. If they did not want me to have the gun.. they would have never signed off on the form.

When you say "nothing good..." you mean for thepeople that may be stopped and asked who they are? I am not sure how this will harm anyone. It steals only your time and then can be extremely brief.

Criminals have everything to fear because they could be forced to identify who they are if caught in the area of a crime or while doing anything suspicious.

Who will win from this.. the people! The police cannotprotect the peopleif the bad guys who can just walk away.

But again... so many people on here are crying for fear that they may be stopped someday. I again ask.... Who here has EVER been stopped and asked for their name previously?

But please... let me know if I show up and your the victim of a crime. I will not even look for the bad guy. I will allow him to get away because I do not want to bother him. :lol: