USPSureShot wrote:The various police bulletins claiming power to obtain personal info from persons in incorporated areas who detained for load" checks of their openly carried firearms is plainly wrong. They cite ti Hiibel when Hibbel only applies if 2 conditions are met: (1) The state has a stop and ID law, and (2) Terry stop conditions exist. Under your scenario above, presumably neither condition will exist, let alone both (CA has no stop and ID law).So in my mental preparations for my first open carry, being an analyst at heart. I read over the experiences of some of you fine people and much of the information useful..
As I compose my mental checklist and do research, I run across the Orange County Sheriff bulletin as provided on http://www.californiaopencarry.org
The section of this bulletin exalts the deputy to get an ID and do a standard check, specifically for the purpose of determining if the person detained is violating another section of the California Penal Code like 626.
I understand it is not ilegal to not carry ID (yet!). And carrying said ID aids in the cooporative nature of the inevitable stop. As I understand the puroses here, it is as much bout educating the police as it is educating the "We the Sheeple".
What is the rational of not providing ID upon request?
It seems to me that could be interpreted as not "cooperating" and then allowing justification for a real arrest opposed to the fake arrest in the form af a detention.
Further, Hiibel read the Nevada statute in question to be satisfied by stating your name even though the case involved a police officers repreated demand for his driver's license.
If you are up to it, I recommend not carrying ID but providing your name if asked, but stop there - and if they ask for SSN without a Section 7(b) Federal Privacy Act warning, and detain your further when you decline to answer, then you will be able to at least try to sue fora settlement, worked for Chet in Virginia to get $15,000, see http://hamptonroads.com/2008/12/norf...un-arrest-case.