I.D. question

imported post

Quick question, am I required by law to show I.D. in AZ for OC'ing? Like walking down the street going about my business, can LEO tell me to show I.D. without RAS? What about running my numbers without RAS or consent?May be a stupid question, but im not sure. Thanks in advance

imported post

No. OCing is a legal, constitutional right. There is no 'stop and verify' for firearms. You may be detained for RAS for a possible crime/suspicious acitivty, but OCing is not a crime or suspicious in itself.

You do not need to carry ID to OC. However, if you look young (under 18), I'd suggest it, since an officer may reasonably suspect you are a minor in possession of firearm.

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

You do not need to carry ID to OC. However, if you look young (under 18), I'd suggest it, since an officer may reasonably suspect you are a minor in possession of firearm.

Click to expand...

I thought that a "hunch" was not grounds for RAS. I do look young, but im nearly 22... when i shave i can pass for a highschool kid (so i've been told):?i was under the impresison that LEO could notdetain me for looking young, just like they couldntdetain a gangbanger forwalking down the street in a nicer area of town. If i got pulled over for a traffic violation, is that RAS to run numbers?

imported post

I continued on my search for the law, and found it.

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

Unfortunately i also stumbled upon a law that makes it illegal to not give aid to a LEO upon command... Really? it's my job tohelpLEOstop aman illegally OC'ing (just an example as this is an OC forum)if LEO tells me to or face arrest? He is not legally required to help me, why must we help them?I had no idea about this law...

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

No. OCing is a legal, constitutional right. There is no 'stop and verify' for firearms. You may be detained for RAS for a possible crime/suspicious acitivty, but OCing is not a crime or suspicious in itself.

You do not need to carry ID to OC. However, if you look young (under 18), I'd suggest it, since an officer may reasonably suspect you are a minor in possession of firearm.

Click to expand...

It is also wise to carry a gun that will not pop up on a hot list if it is for some reason checked out.

Although I firmly believe our rights should not be infringed questions such as this regarding running numbers make one wonder why you would be so concerned.

I would be mad as a wet hen if stopped and checked because of OC but would have no real concern over the numbers being checked.

Stay safe and stay legal.

imported post

It is also wise to carry a gun that will not pop up on a hot list if it is for some reason checked out.

Although I firmly believe our rights should not be infringed questions such as this regarding running numbers make one wonder why you would be so concerned.

I would be mad as a wet hen if stopped and checked because of OC but would have no real concern over the numbers being checked.

Stay safe and stay legal.

Click to expand...

I was just curious about the numbers, was watching an actual OC encounter with komifornia LEOon youtube. OCer had no choice but to consent to a loaded check, but the officer checked the mag, then the chamber, then proceeded to read off the serial number to his partner wich was unconstitutional and illegal. My OC weapon was bought new in box from an FFL dealer so i know for a fact that my numbers are good. I was just curious. I can find the video if you'd like to see

imported post

Kalifornia is a world of its own that needs to straighten up or slide off.

imported post

The can't slide off. They have all those big white fans on the coast holding them on.

imported post

mrh2008 wrote:

I continued on my search for the law, and found it.

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

Unfortunately i also stumbled upon a law that makes it illegal to not give aid to a LEO upon command... Really? it's my job tohelpLEOstop aman illegally OC'ing (just an example as this is an OC forum)if LEO tells me to or face arrest? He is not legally required to help me, why must we help them?I had no idea about this law...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I think you are trying to say that AZ laws are like CA laws, where mere possession of a firearm is justification for a stop.

Possession of a firearm in AZ is not a crime, nor is it considered RAS for anthing.

Yes, if you are stopped for investigation of a possible crime or criminal activity, you must give your true name. You are not allowed to lie to avoid arrest (in the case of a warrant). Just like you are not allowed to not identify yourself if stopped for a traffic violation.

The statute about rendering aid stems from the 'posse comitatus' laws, and many states have such statutes, as far as I know.

And no, for the record, you cannot be called to disarm some one for OCing, since OC is not a crime in AZ.

You seem to really be trying to misconstrue AZ laws to make them appear oppressive or Kalifornian. Why is that?

imported post

Don't have to show ID, but do not lie and say you don't have it if you do.
It is called 'Sterile Carry' when you leave id off your person.
Then you can truthfully inform them you have no papers and await deportation
to America, their choice.

FFL gun is a good safety margin, but not a sure bet, after all Mexico and BHO
both say they are selling the machine guns to over the border thugs. :banghead:

All those guns from TN police went through FFL's before going back into
other criminal investigations.

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I think you are trying to say that AZ laws are like CA laws, where mere possession of a firearm is justification for a stop.

And no, for the record, you cannot be called to disarm some one for OCing, since OC is not a crime in AZ.

You seem to really be trying to misconstrue AZ laws to make them appear oppressive or Kalifornian. Why is that?

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to get at anything. I had a question aboutI.D. and LEO that i was unable to answer myself, so i asked here, then i found the law and posted it for any others that may have the same question or wanted tosee the law. I then saw the serial number running vid without consent of the Carrier by Kalifornia LEO so i threw that in for opinions.As for the law for aiding LEO, i didn't know such laws existed and found it a little odd. In the law, it says "reasonable" so me going after someone OC'ing is out of the question, but IputOC in there because this is OCDO. We all know that there are, have been, and will be people arrested for OC'ing (LEO call it CC'ing) OC'ing in your car, wearing a big shirt/jacket that covers 1/2" of your grip, etc. I'll use a different example this time, I did not know that i could face arrest if i did not detain a minor for stealing a pack of bubblegum after reasonable request by an LEO to do so. IANAL, but after reading the statute, i think this example (bubblegum one)could fall under that law, and i have a hunch that others here did not know of this law either so i threw that in as well, i found it interesting and wanted to share, thats all. (or i could be the only one that didn't knowand feel incredibly ignorant to the law) I have lived in Kalifornia for some time, although it was before i could own/carry but most of my family is in Kalifornia and my father and uncle are avid hunters that live in CA and another relative is a CHP officer and a late Uncle was LA county sheriff for 12 yearsso i have heard many Kali gun laws that do not strike me as constitutional. I believe Arizona's gun laws are fabulous and was not trying to make any of them soundunconstitutional. By the way, thank you for your I.D. question input, much appreciated.

imported post

mrh2008 wrote:

Quick question, am I required by law to show I.D. in AZ for OC'ing? Like walking down the street going about my business, can LEO tell me to show I.D. without RAS? What about running my numbers without RAS or consent?May be a stupid question, but im not sure. Thanks in advance

Click to expand...

There was a Supreme Court just a few years back (Hibel v 6th District) resulting from a case in Nevada where a man refused to identify himself. Supremes said that a routine stop does not violate 4th & 5th amendments andyou are required to "show your papers."

Fred

imported post

I think some people are miss-understanding the intent of the rendering aid to a LEO when ordered.

IMO. They are not going to tell you to go arrest or detain someone, this is more along the lines of he/she is getting the crap beat out of them and they are requesting assistance you legally have to help them, and it should be a crime not to help them unless you physically can't.

If you won't help the people protecting you, what does that say about you?

imported post

azcdlfred wrote:

mrh2008 wrote:

Quick question, am I required by law to show I.D. in AZ for OC'ing? Like walking down the street going about my business, can LEO tell me to show I.D. without RAS? What about running my numbers without RAS or consent?May be a stupid question, but im not sure. Thanks in advance

Click to expand...

There was a Supreme Court just a few years back (Hibel v 6th District) resulting from a case in Nevada where a man refused to identify himself. Supremes said that a routine stop does not violate 4th & 5th amendments andyou are required to "show your papers."

Fred

Click to expand...

Hey azcdlfred,

In Hibel, the Supremes ruled that way because NV is a "stop and ID state." Kali is not a "stop and ID state," and most believe that Terry v. Ohio and JL v. Florida are better guides for stop and ID cases.

Is AZ a "stop and ID state?"

AZkopper does not seem to think that a gun isRAS for a Terry-hot-stop or an excuse to ID check (AZkopper, please don't get upset if I put words on your post--I am paraphrasing).

Am I wrong?

markm

imported post

MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:

In Hibel, the Supremes ruled that way because NV is a "stop and ID state." Kali is not a "stop and ID state," and most believe that Terry v. Ohio and JL v. Florida are better guides for stop and ID cases.

Is AZ a "stop and ID state?"

AZkopper does not seem to think that a gun isRAS for a Terry-hot-stop or an excuse to ID check (AZkopper, please don't get upset if I put words on your post--I am paraphrasing).

Am I wrong?

markm

Click to expand...

I'll let our more learned colleages on this list answer that question. My assumption was that via Hibel, the Supremes applied the "must show papers" rule to the entire U.S

Fred

imported post

Hey Fred,

"I'll let our more learned colleages on this list answer that question. My assumption was that via Hibel, the Supremes applied the "must show papers" rule to the entire U.S"

Fred

This has been a hot topic in PRK. DAs, a police officer's union, and some police chiefs and Sheriffs have opined that it is uncharted SCOTUS territory because the Hibel case revolved around the "stop and ID" statute that Nevada has (paraphrased and generalized wording).

PRK does not have that statute; therefore, we are not obligated to carry ID unless we are driving a motor vehicle. Some PRK OCers don't give their name or ID when they are 12031 (e) checked (weapon check for load condition).

One did give his name and was charged later by the DA. Had he not volunteered his name, the cop would never have known the name and the DA would not have been able to bring charges for violating the GFSZ (they got him on the 1,000' rule; he was in a laundromat).


Again, I don't know if AZ is a "stop and ID" state.

markm

imported post


From my post in the Nevada forum on a similar topic:



(Phssthpok wrote:

Back on topic....

This is in no way intended as an impeachment of your actions...you did what you thought best for your own personal circumstances. You didn't want to go to jail that night and did what you felt you must to avoid that happening.

HOWEVER...IMHO...

One should be fully prepared to stand by their position in their lawful activity, even to the point of being arrested and transported to the klink, else those individuals who are Jabbut-inclined will only be emboldened by those who capitulate to their intimidation tactics.

You have apparently come to this same conclusion based upon your stated intent to no longer carry ID when not driving. I applaud you, sir. I have deliberately carried 'sterile' from my very first day. In my pocket I carry only some cash and a BORSE.

Click to expand...

Also, bear in mind that in HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. where..

Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS held that :

Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown.

Click to expand...

Think about that for a moment....according to SCOTUS, absent "reasonable suspicion" of a crime (think: Terry v. Ohio) YOU ARE NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO PROVIDE YOUR NAME. Another SCOTUS quote:

Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.

Click to expand...

If you get them to admit that you have not broken any laws that they are aware of, then Terry is NOT satisfied, and the identify statute cited in Hiible becomes moot. The protections of the Fourth MUST be satisfied by a VALID 'Terry' stop (read: reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed) for the Nevada statute to be lawfully enforceable.

Further, their attempt obtain ID to 'determine if you were a felon in possession of a firearm' is a blatant violation of the fifth . Yet another SCOTUS quote from Hiible:

Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445.

Click to expand...

If you were, in fact a felon, their attempts to compel you to disclose your name/ID is a direct violation of the fifth as it would open you up to criminal charges. (See 18 USC, sec 241)

Remember.....with the law on your side, the further they take you down the yellow brick road, the more solid your case against them becomes.

(All quotes are from HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al., and emphasis mine)

Click to expand...

imported post

Phoenix David wrote:

I think some people are miss-understanding the intent of the rendering aid to a LEO when ordered.

IMO. They are not going to tell you to go arrest or detain someone, this is more along the lines of he/she is getting the crap beat out of them and they are requesting assistance you legally have to help them, and it should be a crime not to help them unless you physically can't.

If you won't help the people protecting you, what does that say about you?

Click to expand...

I take issue with this.

Cops break the law all the time. Helping them do it makes you liable for the very same things as they.

A law that requires you to commit crimes...

The LEOs are not protecting anything but their dear precious tyrants. Where does their paycheck come from? Follow the money. Cops are nothing more than mercenaries. They get paid with your money, to take your money.