Where is OC going? What can be done to help the cause?

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

x-sheeple wrote:

Yes, I understand that...in Monroe, LA there is a city ordinace which states you must have an I.D. on your person if you are walking down the sidewalk. In other words if you are walking in town and a police officer stops and asks to see your I.D. and you don,t have one...you could go to jail...at his discretion

Click to expand...

Would not pass the first round in a court of law.

Click to expand...

Wrong again Bucko.

Almost any major city has a similar ordinances. Don't have access, but I am pretty sure there is also a state law similar to that.


i watch it get prosecuted in court every week.


Not saying it is right, but it does happen.

Click to expand...

Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?
Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such?

Click to expand...

Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?
Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such?

Click to expand...

Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?
Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such?
If you have the right to exist without being ID'd by any government entity, how can there possibly be a "law" demanding you produce ID?
Thanks to the fairly recent and absurd Hibbell ruling, it appears you may have to ORALLY identify WHO you are, by name.
Anything beyond that is a stretch, including DOB.

Click to expand...

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

x-sheeple wrote:

Yes, I understand that...in Monroe, LA there is a city ordinace which states you must have an I.D. on your person if you are walking down the sidewalk. In other words if you are walking in town and a police officer stops and asks to see your I.D. and you don,t have one...you could go to jail...at his discretion

Click to expand...

Would not pass the first round in a court of law.

Click to expand...

Wrong again Bucko.

Almost any major city has a similar ordinances. Don't have access, but I am pretty sure there is also a state law similar to that.


i watch it get prosecuted in court every week.


Not saying it is right, but it does happen.

Click to expand...

You should NOT carry ID at all times. You are only obligated to have ID when doing something that would otherwise be illegal without a license ie. driving a car, carrying a pistol etc. The Supreme Court has rules TWICE on this matter. Kolender v Lawson and Hibel v. 6th Judicial Cir. of Nevada. NYPD's "policy" of taking people in who do not have ID on them can subject them to a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit. I hope this guy drains the bank accounts of every officer involved in this nonsense. NYPD is not above the law. The Supreme Court has spoken.... not once but TWICE on this issue.

Click to expand...

nolacopusmc wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

x-sheeple wrote:

Yes, I understand that...in Monroe, LA there is a city ordinace which states you must have an I.D. on your person if you are walking down the sidewalk. In other words if you are walking in town and a police officer stops and asks to see your I.D. and you don,t have one...you could go to jail...at his discretion

Click to expand...

Would not pass the first round in a court of law.

Click to expand...

Wrong again Bucko.

Almost any major city has a similar ordinances. Don't have access, but I am pretty sure there is also a state law similar to that.


i watch it get prosecuted in court every week.


Not saying it is right, but it does happen.

Click to expand...

I am fairly certain the the US Supreme Court has ruled that to be unconstitutional. I think it may be part of the Terry v Ohio ruling on which Louisiana's CCRP 215.1 is based. I believe that the logic behind the USSC decision is that it violates both the 4th and 5th amendments; those amendments have already been incorporated against the states (and the municipalities as sub to state).

Another poster in a different forum talking about this issue in New York has quoted two other USSC decisions which I am not familiar with. Jared wrote:

You should NOT carry ID at all times. You are only obligated to have ID when doing something that would otherwise be illegal without a license ie. driving a car, carrying a pistol etc. The Supreme Court has rules TWICE on this matter. Kolender v Lawson and Hibel v. 6th Judicial Cir. of Nevada. NYPD's "policy" of taking people in who do not have ID on them can subject them to a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit. I hope this guy drains the bank accounts of every officer involved in this nonsense. NYPD is not above the law. The Supreme Court has spoken.... not once but TWICE on this issue.

Click to expand...

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=26092&forum_id=40&highlight=Supreme+Court+ID

If Jared is correct, any smart LEO will not ask for a driver's license if the person he stops is not doing something for which a driver's licens is required.

Click to expand...

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?
Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such?
If you have the right to exist without being ID'd by any government entity, how can there possibly be a "law" demanding you produce ID?
Thanks to the fairly recent and absurd Hibbell ruling, it appears you may have to ORALLY identify WHO you are, by name.
Anything beyond that is a stretch, including DOB.

Click to expand...

Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must.

Even IF a person is willing and able to place themselves in the position of "test case," knowing the statute is wise. In this case, no one has even shown that there is a valid statute.

Click to expand...

wrightme wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?
Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such?
If you have the right to exist without being ID'd by any government entity, how can there possibly be a "law" demanding you produce ID?
Thanks to the fairly recent and absurd Hibbell ruling, it appears you may have to ORALLY identify WHO you are, by name.
Anything beyond that is a stretch, including DOB.

Click to expand...

Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must.

Even IF a person is willing and able to place themselves in the position of "test case," knowing the statute is wise. In this case, no one has even shown that there is a valid statute.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with you 100%. I do believe government has become too big in many areas.

SOme people lack the courage to be the test case and instead settle for a check.

Click to expand...

wrightme wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?
Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such?
If you have the right to exist without being ID'd by any government entity, how can there possibly be a "law" demanding you produce ID?
Thanks to the fairly recent and absurd Hibbell ruling, it appears you may have to ORALLY identify WHO you are, by name.
Anything beyond that is a stretch, including DOB.

Click to expand...

Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must.

Even IF a person is willing and able to place themselves in the position of "test case," knowing the statute is wise. In this case, no one has even shown that there is a valid statute.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with you 100%. I do believe government has become too big in many areas.

SOme people lack the courage to be the test case and instead settle for a check.

Click to expand...

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?
Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such?
If you have the right to exist without being ID'd by any government entity, how can there possibly be a "law" demanding you produce ID?
Thanks to the fairly recent and absurd Hibbell ruling, it appears you may have to ORALLY identify WHO you are, by name.
Anything beyond that is a stretch, including DOB.

Click to expand...

Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must.

Even IF a person is willing and able to place themselves in the position of "test case," knowing the statute is wise. In this case, no one has even shown that there is a valid statute.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with you 100%. I do believe government has become too big in many areas.

SOme people lack the courage to be the test case and instead settle for a check.

Click to expand...

You simply cannot prevent the personal digs in your posts, can you. I suppose you can rationalize that obvious character flaw in some way. :?

Click to expand...

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?
Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such?
If you have the right to exist without being ID'd by any government entity, how can there possibly be a "law" demanding you produce ID?
Thanks to the fairly recent and absurd Hibbell ruling, it appears you may have to ORALLY identify WHO you are, by name.
Anything beyond that is a stretch, including DOB.

Click to expand...

Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must.

Even IF a person is willing and able to place themselves in the position of "test case," knowing the statute is wise. In this case, no one has even shown that there is a valid statute.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with you 100%. I do believe government has become too big in many areas.

SOme people lack the courage to be the test case and instead settle for a check.

Click to expand...

It's sad the government employs morally bereft murderers and tyrants who create the need for test cases.

Click to expand...

wrightme wrote:

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?
Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such?
If you have the right to exist without being ID'd by any government entity, how can there possibly be a "law" demanding you produce ID?
Thanks to the fairly recent and absurd Hibbell ruling, it appears you may have to ORALLY identify WHO you are, by name.
Anything beyond that is a stretch, including DOB.

Click to expand...

Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must.

Even IF a person is willing and able to place themselves in the position of "test case," knowing the statute is wise. In this case, no one has even shown that there is a valid statute.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with you 100%. I do believe government has become too big in many areas.

SOme people lack the courage to be the test case and instead settle for a check.

Click to expand...

You simply cannot prevent the personal digs in your posts, can you. I suppose you can rationalize that obvious character flaw in some way. :?

Click to expand...

I rationalize it by realizing no matter what i do in life, at least I am not you, smokingcrack24/7, or THE mem.


As long as I never fall into on e of those categories, I think I will be OK.

You know the saying...Birds of a cuckoo's nest, post together.

Click to expand...

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote:

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?
Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such?
If you have the right to exist without being ID'd by any government entity, how can there possibly be a "law" demanding you produce ID?
Thanks to the fairly recent and absurd Hibbell ruling, it appears you may have to ORALLY identify WHO you are, by name.
Anything beyond that is a stretch, including DOB.

Click to expand...

Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must.

Even IF a person is willing and able to place themselves in the position of "test case," knowing the statute is wise. In this case, no one has even shown that there is a valid statute.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with you 100%. I do believe government has become too big in many areas.

SOme people lack the courage to be the test case and instead settle for a check.

Click to expand...

You simply cannot prevent the personal digs in your posts, can you. I suppose you can rationalize that obvious character flaw in some way. :?

Click to expand...

I rationalize it by realizing no matter what i do in life, at least I am not you, smokingcrack24/7, or THE mem.


As long as I never fall into on e of those categories, I think I will be OK.

You know the saying...Birds of a cuckoo's nest, post together.

Click to expand...

You really know nothing of me to jump to your false conclusion. More the pity.

Click to expand...

wrightme wrote:

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote:

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?
Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such?
If you have the right to exist without being ID'd by any government entity, how can there possibly be a "law" demanding you produce ID?
Thanks to the fairly recent and absurd Hibbell ruling, it appears you may have to ORALLY identify WHO you are, by name.
Anything beyond that is a stretch, including DOB.

Click to expand...

Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must.

Even IF a person is willing and able to place themselves in the position of "test case," knowing the statute is wise. In this case, no one has even shown that there is a valid statute.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with you 100%. I do believe government has become too big in many areas.

SOme people lack the courage to be the test case and instead settle for a check.

Click to expand...

You simply cannot prevent the personal digs in your posts, can you. I suppose you can rationalize that obvious character flaw in some way. :?

Click to expand...

I rationalize it by realizing no matter what i do in life, at least I am not you, smokingcrack24/7, or THE mem.


As long as I never fall into on e of those categories, I think I will be OK.

You know the saying...Birds of a cuckoo's nest, post together.

Click to expand...

You really know nothing of me to jump to your false conclusion. More the pity.

Click to expand...

But yet you know so much of me to make the comments and assumptions you do.

More more the pity.

Click to expand...

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote:

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote:

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?
Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such?
If you have the right to exist without being ID'd by any government entity, how can there possibly be a "law" demanding you produce ID?
Thanks to the fairly recent and absurd Hibbell ruling, it appears you may have to ORALLY identify WHO you are, by name.
Anything beyond that is a stretch, including DOB.

Click to expand...

Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must.

Even IF a person is willing and able to place themselves in the position of "test case," knowing the statute is wise. In this case, no one has even shown that there is a valid statute.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with you 100%. I do believe government has become too big in many areas.

SOme people lack the courage to be the test case and instead settle for a check.

Click to expand...

You simply cannot prevent the personal digs in your posts, can you. I suppose you can rationalize that obvious character flaw in some way. :?

Click to expand...

I rationalize it by realizing no matter what i do in life, at least I am not you, smokingcrack24/7, or THE mem.


As long as I never fall into on e of those categories, I think I will be OK.

You know the saying...Birds of a cuckoo's nest, post together.

Click to expand...

You really know nothing of me to jump to your false conclusion. More the pity.

Click to expand...

But yet you know so much of me to make the comments and assumptions you do.

More more the pity.

Click to expand...

What you post here provides quite a window into your psyche. So does what I post here. Viewing those two objects with an open mind will open your mind.

Even when you are not provoked in a thread, you freely lace any response you give with putdowns to those you do not agree with, even when they are not participating in the thread. You are nothing but a troll when it comes to these forums. Your inability to stop this act does say quite a bit about your character. Lumping me in with those who trade insults with you is not accurate.

Click to expand...

Others do the same that you are accusing me of, yet you do not attempt to impose your opinions upon them. If you do not like my posts, can you not just ignore them and not respond. Didn't your mother ever teach you if you ignore them, they will leave you alone.

If you believe that the internet is a window into someone's pysche'. then you definitely belong to the group of instables like those you defend so vehemently.

Click to expand...

nolacopusmc wrote:

Others do the same that you are accusing me of, yet you do not attempt to impose your opinions upon them. If you do not like my posts, can you not just ignore them and not respond. Didn't your mother ever teach you if you ignore them, they will leave you alone.

If you believe that the internet is a window into someone's pysche'. then you definitely belong to the group of instables like those you defend so vehemently.

Click to expand...

So far it is working well as a window. You held true to form there.

You tell me I could simply "ignore your posts," yet you do not do the same with those who you disagree with.

But, I sure do see it is useless to even respond to you. It results in back/forth like this.

Click to expand...