Duty to identify

imported post

I think there is a difference between a LEO who says,
"Got a minute to talk about OC?" or something similar.

And a LEO who says,
"Let me see your ID".

The first person is approaching as a person, the second is trying to take away one of my rights.

imported post

DRG wrote:

the second is trying to take away one of my rights.

Click to expand...

Which right would that be, the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures? Is that right eviscerated by demanding you utter your name?

We need to carefully differentiate between identification and identification documents.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote

We need to carefully differentiate between identification and identification documents.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I assumed ID = a piece of paper or plastic issued by the government that proves my identity. My name is a different story. I would hope that most people that start a conversation with me would want to know my name.

imported post

I spent the morning visiting with the Chiefs of Police in nearby small communities. Both said they would respond to a MWAG if it was called in or if they saw a MWAG on the street. Both said they would stop, ask for a name, and a reason for carrying. One said they would then ask the person to leave and not come back. The other said that if the MWAG said he was exercising his 2A right, that would be the end of the "encounter". Btw, both said it so far hasn't happened in their community and I think they both hoped it wouldn't. Asking for a name and asking for their ID are two different things. Personally, I don't always carry my drivers license unless I am going to drive, just like I don't carry my hunting license unless I am hunting. But, driving and hunting are privilages and not rights. Wisconsin does not have a general ID card. The 2nd Amendment should be my carry permit. Maybe the next bill will require us to get a number stamped on our foreheads or a chip inserted in our necks. Then all the cops have to do is scan us and they'll know who we are.

imported post

Yes, this thread has re-inspired me, hopefully to overcome my lazy procrastination, to get a passport card and leave my DL with the car's registration and proof of insurance.

imported post

Didn't you read what I posted earlier? GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO CAUSE HARM.

Click to expand...

You say that as if it is a bad thing. Of course guns are designed to cause harm, that is the definition of "arms". If they were not dangerous then they would not be granted protections under the Second Amendment.

Bus, car, printer, your God given bare hands, Grandma's knitting needles... are NOT. Guns can be the exception in my eyes.

Click to expand...

Thankfully the law and judicial precedent disagree with you. It is precisely because guns are dangerous that they are granted greater protections than Grandma's knitting needles.

Oh I don't know... I'd actually feel better if a cop stopped and talked a guy carrying a big ol' .45 who urinated and defecated in his pants while muttering into the sun that he can see the pink elephants coming.

Click to expand...

What does the fact that the person is armed have to do with the example you gave?

To summarize. Wearing a GUN can and will raise eyebrows. Yes, it is a citizen's right, but is that citizen "in their right mind" and competent, and legally able to wear one? Do you not see or recognize the GREAT POTENTIAL THREAT and responsibility that a person carries while wearing one? How easily they could draw and gun down innocents at any time if they ARE whacked? Do you not see that??? Why SHOULDN'T a cop not care if he sees someone with a GUN?? Why the heck not ask someone a couple of questions???

Click to expand...

To summarize, the person NOT wearing a gun should raise eyebrows. A person not visibly armed could be a prohibited person or be concealing a weapon illegally. There is also the possibility that the person is not prohibited from going armed and is not concealing a weapon. I guess it would be a good idea for the police officer to stop those people and ask for their names.

Understandably to me at least, it IS the police's job to help assure the public safety. I see no fault in helping them realize that I am not a threat and AM exercising my rights. However... if the moment comes that an LEO does try to infringe upon my rights, yes, I WILL claim the 5th and tout the 4th if it comes to it.

Click to expand...

It is NOT the police's job to protect you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Protection_of_individuals

The moment the police officer stops you only because you are armed that officer has violated your rights. No need to wait for the officer to ask for your name, it's already too late.

imported post

Well, there sure is a difference of Opinion on this one.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

To me, it boils down to two camps. Citizen. Ambassador.

Click to expand...

I prefer to refer to the two camps as citizen and subject. A citizen is free as the government answers to them. A subject must answer to the government.

If you want to be an ambassador then please be an ambassador for the Constitution. It seems many in the nation need to be introduced to the document.

imported post

We need to carefully differentiate between identification and identification documents.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. Once we establish that people are required to identify themselves when asked by an agent of the government we are one small step away from being required to prove it with a government issued document. Maybe that's just tin foil helmet, slippery slope fear mongering, crazy talk but I have to draw the line somewhere in the defense of my right against government interference in my life.

Either way you slice it I feel that a law compelling people to identify themselves upon demand, or produce an identifying document on demand, is in violation of our constitutionally protected rights. If a person can be compelled to give their name then we no longer have the right to remain silent.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

DRG wrote:

the second is trying to take away one of my rights.

Click to expand...

Which right would that be, the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?  Is that right eviscerated by demanding you utter your name?

We need to carefully differentiate between identification and identification documents.
[/quotephred wrote:

I spent the morning visiting with the Chiefs of Police in nearby small communities.  Both said they would respond to a MWAG if it was called in or if they saw a MWAG on the street.  Both said they would stop, ask for a name, and a reason for carrying.  One said they would then ask the person to leave and not come back.  The other said that if the MWAG said he was exercising his 2A right, that would be the end of the "encounter". Btw, both said it so far hasn't happened in their community and I think they both hoped it wouldn't.   Asking for a name and asking for their ID are two different things.  Personally, I don't always carry my drivers license unless I am going to drive, just like I don't carry my hunting license unless I am hunting. But, driving and hunting are privilages and not rights.   Wisconsin does not have a general ID card.  The 2nd Amendment should be my carry permit.  Maybe the next bill will require us to get a number stamped on our foreheads or a chip inserted in our necks.  Then all the cops have to do is scan us and they'll know who we are.

Click to expand...

I think the line to be drawn is concerning the consensual or non-consensual nature of the contact. I do not appreciate demands from anyone. Cop or not. In a consensual conversation, I am happy to offer up my name and enter into a friendly conversation

My 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment rights are there for a reason and to allow an arm of the government to trample them so as to "not rock the boat" strikes me as a compromise I can not live with.

We are exercising our 2nd Amendment rights because "A right un-exercised is a right lost" or so we hear often enough. I believe this phrase is just as valid for the rest of those creator endowed rights.

The rights we have written on our hearts and in our minds. You, whoever you are, may do as you like. You need no permission or acquiescence from me or anyone else. Just know that every right we give up, either by assent or through coercive behavior on the part of the cop is a right we may no-longer seek shelter with.

You may consider that it is just this once or just this summer or whatever but this has a cumulative affect and in the minds of the cop, it legitimizes his behavior. Energizes his negative behavior and allows it to continue un-abated.

This is not good for us in any sense. For us to rationalize bad, illegal, harassing, bullying, belligerent behavior because we do not wish to rock the boat is far more counter productive then actually rocking the boat.

As for that uttering your name business, if it was some kid, or some gang banger or just some guy who "demanded" your name, would you be just as quick to acquiesce to the demand. I am willing to bet not. I suspect you would not bend to the demands of another unless you were scared of their uniform, badge, gun, attitude, etc.

So, to me, a cop is just another person until they make it personal. Then I choose to keep it impersonal.


Oh yeah, Put me down as a NO to chip injections or numbers stamped on my forehead. Not really into number tattoos either.

As for the cops in those two communities, it might just be time for a group road trip. Fresh air and sunshine always makes me wanna get out and carry.

After that, we can talk about another law suit.

Hardballer out!

Click to expand...

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Didn't you read what I posted earlier? GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO CAUSE HARM.

Click to expand...

You say that as if it is a bad thing. Of course guns are designed to cause harm, that is the definition of "arms". If they were not dangerous then they would not be granted protections under the Second Amendment.

You quoted me with out context. The statement made was to differentiate a GUN vs. a car or any other off the cuff item that people were bringing into the "what ifs". The statement was made to point out that since a gun's ultimate purpose is to do harm, a police "interrogation" on the use of other items is pretty ridiculous.

Bus, car, printer, your God given bare hands, Grandma's knitting needles... are NOT. Guns can be the exception in my eyes.

Click to expand...

Thankfully the law and judicial precedent disagree with you. It is precisely because guns are dangerous that they are granted greater protections than Grandma's knitting needles.

What? It's a free country... just TRY to take grandma's knitting needles away from me!!! Out of my cold dead hands... and sweater... wait... maybe my hands would be warm...

Blah. It is precisely because guns are dangerous that it should be made sure that they are handled by people capable of the responsibility. The statement was made to point out if someone is "carrying" knitting needles, a cop should not care. If it's a gun, I feel they should care.

Oh I don't know... I'd actually feel better if a cop stopped and talked a guy carrying a big ol' .45 who urinated and defecated in his pants while muttering into the sun that he can see the pink elephants coming.

Click to expand...

What does the fact that the person is armed have to do with the example you gave?

Well unless you feel a person like that is "normal", capable of the responsibility of carrying a firearm and shouldn't be questioned... nothing I guess.

To summarize. Wearing a GUN can and will raise eyebrows. Yes, it is a citizen's right, but is that citizen "in their right mind" and competent, and legally able to wear one? Do you not see or recognize the GREAT POTENTIAL THREAT and responsibility that a person carries while wearing one? How easily they could draw and gun down innocents at any time if they ARE whacked? Do you not see that??? Why SHOULDN'T a cop not care if he sees someone with a GUN?? Why the heck not ask someone a couple of questions???

Click to expand...

To summarize, the person NOT wearing a gun should raise eyebrows. A person not visibly armed could be a prohibited person or be concealing a weapon illegally. There is also the possibility that the person is not prohibited from going armed and is not concealing a weapon. I guess it would be a good idea for the police officer to stop those people and ask for their names.

Your first sentence here sounds good to me in a perfect world, but it's not that way. Like I stated the "norm" right now is to question people carrying because people and LEO's aren't used to OC. Until the movement grows stronger and people do get used to it, don't expect any changes. The process will take time. Probably longer than need be if right off the bat you start playing "rights" games with police by clamming up when they are trying to do their job. I'm sure it makes a great impression. Hopefully there will come a day when you don't have to hardly worry about getting questioned. Until then, I choose to be polite unless it comes to not being polite by having my rights infringed upon.

Understandably to me at least, it IS the police's job to help assure the public safety. I see no fault in helping them realize that I am not a threat and AM exercising my rights. However... if the moment comes that an LEO does try to infringe upon my rights, yes, I WILL claim the 5th and tout the 4th if it comes to it.

Click to expand...

It is NOT the police's job to protect you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Protection_of_individuals

The moment the police officer stops you only because you are armed that officer has violated your rights. No need to wait for the officer to ask for your name, it's already too late."


Oh... I see. So you don't think a cop would try to stop a madman from walking into the food court and opening fire. You must have the idea that cops are unfeeling, jack booted thugs whose sole purpose is STRICTLY to arrest people. No, they won't help you if your car breaks down by calling a tow truck, or help you find your lost kid, or pull you out of a car wreck if you crash, or...


You know... I do believe I'm coming to the understanding that not a lot of you have dealt much with cops, and the only things you do see are these links on Youtube showing blatant rights violations. News flash folks. Not ALL cops are bad guys.... Just telling you.

Click to expand...

imported post

Grumpy writes;

don't expect any changes. The process will take time. Probably longer than need be if right off the bat you start playing "rights" games with police by clamming up when they are trying to do their job.

Click to expand...

Rights games? Seriously? Are you a cop that is trolling this board?
You consider our essential liberties a friggin game??

I have asked before, and I'll ask again. "Where would you draw the line?"

Lets say you get pulled over by a cop while driving, for no specific reason, you just get stopped with no probable cause or RAS.
The cop says "As long as I got you here, I would like to take a little look around in your vehicle just to make sure you are not carrying any contraband, or any open alcohol containers?" they are just doing their job, right?
Even though you have not been drinking, and he had no probable cause anyways, would you voluntarily blow into a breathalyzer?
Would you refuse consent for him to conduct a search. Are you playing "rights games" with the cop at that point?? The cop would say you are, I would say you are exercising your rights and not allowing a warrant-less search of your person or your property!
By you standing up to the cop, he would say "You are playing rights Games" Just like you stated!

Then thecop would say; "If you got nothing to hide, then why won't you let me take a little look around in your car" (or your home, maybe even your wife) They are just doing their job, right?

Being stopped (detained) by a cop for legal behavior by itself is a violation of your rights.Then withyou gladly identifying yourself, you are willingly waiving your rights on top of it all!

Maybe you should wander over to the CA state forum and ask Theseus what happened to him when he thought he was being an ambassador to the O-C movement.
Ask him how all his firearms were confiscated, charged and convicted of a felony because he thought he was just being cooperative by onlytelling the cop his name, and how the cop was satisfied with that, and let him walk away, then when they came to his home several days later with a warrant, confiscated all his firearms, jailed him, convicted him, Made him a felon, etc etc etc.

How did this happen, by giving his name justto cooperate with the cop. He was not breaking any laws when this incident took place, the cop let him go on his way, Theseus thought everything was all fine and dandy and he was proud of cooperating and being an ambassador to the O-C movement (UOC actually in CA)
But through some shady deal with a judge, the copscame back later to get him.
What would have happened if he would have not readily waived his rights?? They never would have known who he is, so they would have had no way to find him and do this to him and his family.

What seems innocent now, may not be as it seems. Theseus learned the hard way. Please do not make the same mistakes, Learn from him instead!

Seriously though, Are you a cop that is just trolling this board trying to convince people that waiving their rights by identifying themselves when wrongfully detained for legal, and protectedbehavior is the proper thing to do?

Lets say a black guy is walking through a neighborhood that is primarily white, Do you feel thata cop should detain him and ask for ID just because he is in a neighborhood that is primarily white. And it is something he does not see every day?
So someonein that neighborhood claimsa TV was stolen a few weeks later, should the cops go harass the black guy at his home in the middle of the night just to make sure he had nothing to do with that theft? They are just doing their job, right?

Carrying a firearm is not a criminal act, there is absolutely no reason for a cop to investigate someone for just exercising their rights.

Lets go one further here, Lets say you got a neighbor that does not like you, He tells the cops that you have been dealing drugs out of your home. Do you feel it is ok and proper for the cop to come and search your home because of an anonymous tip?
If you refuse, Are you playing "Rights Games" with the cop? Because if you got nothing to hide, why would you mind if a government agent searches your home just to make sure that you are not selling drugs. Right??? They are just doing their job, right?

Grumpy, You just don't get it do you?
By you waiving your rights at the drop of a hat, all you are doing is rewarding thecop, andreinforcing his bad behavior and making the cop more apt to do this to anyone for any thing.

imported post

You quoted me with out context. The statement made was to differentiate a GUN vs. a car or any other off the cuff item that people were bringing into the "what ifs". The statement was made to point out that since a gun's ultimate purpose is to do harm, a police "interrogation" on the use of other items is pretty ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Our right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, that is doubly so for those of you that live in Wisconsin. Simply going armed is not sufficient cause to stop and interrogate a person. The interrogation over a person possessing the tools of self defense in public is ridiculous.

What? It's a free country... just TRY to take grandma's knitting needles away from me!!! Out of my cold dead hands... and sweater... wait... maybe my hands would be warm...

Click to expand...

I did not say that Grandma's knitting needles lacked protections, just that the protections for arms is higher. Grandma's knitting needles are protected by the 4th Amendment. Grandma's revolver is protected by the 4th and 2nd Amendments.

Blah. It is precisely because guns are dangerous that it should be made sure that they are handled by people capable of the responsibility. The statement was made to point out if someone is "carrying" knitting needles, a cop should not care. If it's a gun, I feel they should care.

Click to expand...

By making sure the person carrying the arms is "responsible" is an infringement of that person's rights. If we were to place the government in a position to determine who is responsible enough to carry arms would then mean we have no right to arms. That is exactly what has happened in Chicago and the District, they have determined that NO ONE is responsible enough to carry arms.

Again, it is precisely because those handguns are dangerous that the police CANNOT interrogate a person about them.

Your first sentence here sounds good to me in a perfect world, but it's not that way. Like I stated the "norm" right now is to question people carrying because people and LEO's aren't used to OC. Until the movement grows stronger and people do get used to it, don't expect any changes. The process will take time. Probably longer than need be if right off the bat you start playing "rights" games with police by clamming up when they are trying to do their job. I'm sure it makes a great impression. Hopefully there will come a day when you don't have to hardly worry about getting questioned. Until then, I choose to be polite unless it comes to not being polite by having my rights infringed upon.

Click to expand...

We cannot achieve my perfect world of an armed polite society if we allow the police to bully people for going armed in public. There cannot be strength in numbers if the numbers never come to be. If a person continues to be hassled for open carry then at some point that person will have to make the choice of either not carrying to avoid being questioned by police or to stand up against the harassment. I ask that everyone that is reading this to stand up for your rights or you will not have them in the future.

Oh... I see. So you don't think a cop would try to stop a madman from walking into the food court and opening fire. You must have the idea that cops are unfeeling, jack booted thugs whose sole purpose is STRICTLY to arrest people. No, they won't help you if your car breaks down by calling a tow truck, or help you find your lost kid, or pull you out of a car wreck if you crash, or...

Click to expand...

Nice straw man you have there. Let me know when you are done beating it to death.

You know... I do believe I'm coming to the understanding that not a lot of you have dealt much with cops, and the only things you do see are these links on Youtube showing blatant rights violations. News flash folks. Not ALL cops are bad guys.... Just telling you.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying all police officers are bad. I even had one call a tow truck for me. It's the police that stop a person for no reason other than having the audacity to carry a weapon that are bad. The nice thing is the bad cops will come up and introduce themselves. A good response to that is to clam up. An even better response is to write down the name of that officer on a complaint form.

imported post

In a nut shell, Wisconsin does not have a MUST identify statute.

There was a police department, Racine, that selectively targeted an individual because he was carrying. We ALL know they wouldn't have talked to him if he hadn't been armed.

$10K later, they (Racine Police, and every other LEO in the state) now know they cannot single out those who OC and they know there is no "must identify" statute.

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

In a nut shell, Wisconsin does not have a MUST identify statute.

Click to expand...

Good enough.



I'm done. Wow you guys. Just... wow. You guys in some sort of radical militia out in the forest living in huts by chance? Nevermind... I'm sure you'll take the 5th.

Well at least ultimately we're all on the same side or we wouldn't be here.

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

In a nut shell, Wisconsin does not have a MUST identify statute.

Click to expand...

§968.24 ...

and may demand the name

Click to expand...

imported post

Yes Doug, 968.24 does say the police can "demand" but it does NOT say you/me/we must comply.

I stick by my statement, Wisconsin does NOT have a must identify statute and nothing in this thread is sufficient to show otherwise.

imported post

Grumpy wrote:


"Oh... I see. So you don't think a cop would try to stop a madman from walking into the food court and opening fire. You must have the idea that cops are unfeeling, jack booted thugs whose sole purpose is STRICTLY to arrest people. No, they won't help you if your car breaks down by calling a tow truck, or help you find your lost kid, or pull you out of a car wreck if you crash, or..."


Where were the cops at Columbine? Oh that's right, they waited outside until the shooting stopped.

Hmm, that's funny, didn't the same thing happen at V Tech?

Oh yeah and the same thing happened at Luby's Cafe in Killean, Texas.


If you actually think the cops are going to take a bullet for you, you have fallen off the deep edge and there is no saving you.

imported post

Big_Grumpy wrote:

You guys in some sort of radical militia out in the forest living in huts by chance?

Click to expand...

No, that is not it at all.
But I do not find it surprising at all that now you are even bashing people who are concerned about the direction thatthis country is heading and just trying to prepare themselves to survive if a major economic collapse does happen, or if we are invaded by a foreign force.
You really need to start being a little more responsible, take the initiative to not rely on others for your on protection and well being.

It is very obvious that you do not cherish your rights as much as many of us involved in this conversation do.
I/We also feel that by you readily waiving your rights to anyone at anytime is causing harm to the rest of us.

Have you ever seen the movie "Lake Placid" where several differentpeople are working together with the common goal ofattempting to trap a large dangerous crocodile?
Butthenthey got some old lady that is feeding this same crocodile to nurture it, which in turn cause problems for everyone else.
You readily waiving your 4A rights to any police officer that asks is you nurturing their bad behavior and making it difficult for the rest of us by positively reinforcing that unwanted behavior.

You are acting just like the old lady in the movie by doing nothing but causing problems for everyone else that is working towards a common goal to not be harassed for simply exercising our 2A rights.

In case you do not understand what the common goal is in OCDO, I'll give you a hint.
We are a group of people thatare standing up for, and protectingour rights, all of our rights. not only our 2A rights. Waiving our 4A & 5A rights as a compromise to exercise 2A rights is not part of the deal.

I forget who said this, But I agree; "If it was not for our 2A rights, we would have lost many other rights long ago"


"use them, or lose them"

imported post

I will step in here. This is NOT a police bashing forum. Please hold the rhetoric to a minimum.

imported post

Fortunately this is John and Mike's forum and they are the ones that enforce the rules.