Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Encounter with Parker PD

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Parker, CO, , USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    I had just gotten off of work. Went home picked up my .45 and while still in uniform went off to Starbuks. At this point I was concealed carrying it. A/C was out at Starbucks so I took off my top and exposed my weapon as I was casually sitting and goofing off on my laptop, relaxing. Received a phone call and decided to take it outside and not bother the people sitting there next to me. I stepped just outside the door and started talking on the phone. No sooner than 10 minutes, I noticed a cop 50 yards to the north radio in something. Casually went on with my phone call, turned around and saw another cop pull in from the south. They both walked towards me and one of them very politely motioned with his hand that he would like to speak to me for a minute. I told my friend I'd call him back in 2.

    I can't complain about the treatment whatsoever. They were very polite and courteous. I actually happen to like Parker PD cops.

    I said, "Hi, can I help you?"
    Officer 1: "You're carrying a .45?"
    Me: "Yes"
    Officer 1: "Just want to let you know, you're not breaking any laws. Someone around here was concerned and asked us to come check it out. Said there was a man in military fatigues carrying a 45 on his hip."
    Me: "Really? Alright."
    Officer 2: "Can I see some sort of ID?"
    I pulled out my military ID and handed it to him.
    He then proceeded to ask me what I do, what rank, blah blah.
    Then he told me he was a cop in the Air Force as well, blah blah. Called my information in and said, "I'm just checking to make sure you don't have any outstanding warrants."
    I chuckled and thought to myself, "Yes, a guy like me who has an open Top Secret Security Clearance investigation on him could possibly have an outstanding warrant for his arrest."
    Officer 1: "Do you have a CCW or something?"
    Me: "Yes I do."
    He didn't ask to see it but he kind of implied that he'd like to. I knew that I didn't have to show it to him because the circumstance under which they approached me was an OC situation and that already is perfectly legal. But I let him see it anyway.
    He looked at it, they both nodded, told me people get freaked out here in Parker and I should probably consider concealing it.
    I said well it was concealed when I had my uniform top on but it's fine not concealed as well.
    He said, "sorry for taking your time. We have to come out every time they call."
    I said, "no biggy."
    Then when I went back inside, I saw the dude who presumably called on me and I could tell he was pissed off when the cops presumably told him I was legit and not breaking any laws. The dude was waving his arms in the air in frustration.
    I chucked again...and thought to myself, "one person at a time, we will educate people."

    The ignorance is mind-boggling though!
    Thanks for reading!

  2. #2
    Regular Member zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    Nice 1st post.

    Welcome to the board.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276

    Post imported post

    Welcome aboard!!!


    I am not one of those types that is gonna say what you should have or I would have done....That said you do realize you did not have to give up ID or answer any questions right? The officers had a right to ask for ID but could not demand it.

    At least you weren't disarmed.

    The only reason I bring it up is that OC does not require ID. It is like a cop asking to see ID because you had a cell phone in your hand.

  4. #4
    scubabeme
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Welcome to the forum froma retired USAFSrNCO (Hmmm, wonder if that's why I picked that avatar...).

    What's your AFSC? (if they still use that acronym--been retired since '97) Back then I was 45199. (F-16/A-10 Avionics for the curious, and in case things have changed that much)

  5. #5
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    win:celebrate

  6. #6
    Regular Member Jonathon Norris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    Welcome to the boards, and thanks for your service! I had my first run in with the cops at a Starbucks here in Alabama a couple days ago, and it was the same deal. Totally non-chalant, laid-backpolice encounter, theyjust had to check me outbecause some other customer freaked.

    Seems like we're making some progress, huh?
    A wayfarer should not walk unarmed,
    But have his weapons to hand:
    He knows not when he may need a spear,
    Or what menace meet on the road.

    - Odin
    The Havamal

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Parker, CO, , USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Parker, CO, , USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Parker, CO, , USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    kingfish wrote:
    Welcome aboard!!!


    I am not one of those types that is gonna say what you should have or I would have done....That said you do realize you did not have to give up ID or answer any questions right?¬* The officers had a right to ask for ID but could not demand it.

    At least you weren't disarmed.

    The only reason I bring it up is that OC does not require ID.¬* It is like a cop asking to see ID because you had a cell phone in your hand.
    Hey thanks for the comments. I actually did not know that. But even then, they were being super nice and I know they were just doing their job. Truth is I just wanted them to go away so I could call my friend back.

    Maybe part of it is my military training that predisposes me to go along with authorities as opposed to digging my heels in. I'm sure though if I was being treated unfairly, it would have been an entirely different story.

    I'm curious how the next one will play out.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Parker, CO, , USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    scubabeme wrote:
    Welcome to the forum from¬*a retired USAF¬*SrNCO (Hmmm,¬* wonder if that's why I picked that avatar...).

    What's your AFSC? (if they still use that acronym--been retired since '97)¬* Back then I was 45199. (F-16/A-10 Avionics for the curious, and in case things have changed that much)
    Hey...Avionics huh? You know I can't hear that word enough. Everyday!!

    I'm currently 2S0X and work with the maintenance shops: avionics, weapons, electrical, fuels, phase...

    However I'm transitioning into 1C6 and thus have an open TS/SCI investigation pending. That's why I find all this "we're checking for warrants" comment so funny. You mean, I can have access to hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment, the flight line and many other restricted areas with an outstanding warrant for my arrest? Yes that makes so much sense, by all means call me in.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Parker, CO, , USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    zach wrote:
    Nice 1st post.

    Welcome to the board.
    thanks man!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Parker, CO, , USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    kingfish wrote:
    Welcome aboard!!!


    I am not one of those types that is gonna say what you should have or I would have done....That said you do realize you did not have to give up ID or answer any questions right?¬* The officers had a right to ask for ID but could not demand it.

    At least you weren't disarmed.

    The only reason I bring it up is that OC does not require ID.¬* It is like a cop asking to see ID because you had a cell phone in your hand.
    I just spoke with a Parker PD officer regarding those other officers asking me for an ID and he said that even though OC is perfectly legal, it's perfectly legal for citizens who are legally allowed to own a weapon. The reason they ask for an ID is so they can make sure that there is nothing that prevents you from legally owning a weapon. That's why you have to provide them with your ID when asked.

    This made perfect sense to me.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Hopefully the ahole will go back to Kalifornia. Welcome to the forum from a former AF Aviator (F-4s) and current Civilian PM. If you showed him Military ID, I wonder why he asked for your rank; other than that, you went beyond what you're legally obligated to do, but if the cops were polite and respectful, no harm no foul.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Longmont, CO, ,
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    ilovejetnoise777 wrote:
    The reason they ask for an ID is so they can make sure that there is nothing that prevents you from legally owning a weapon. That's why you have to provide them with your ID when asked.

    This made perfect sense to me.
    So if you're walking down the street with your kids, it's OK for them to demand ID to make sure you aren't legally prevented from being around children?

    Or to stop you in your car for the sole purpose of making sure you have a license?

    It's exactly the same, and no, they can't do that.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Parker, CO, , USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    Hopefully the ahole will go back to Kalifornia. Welcome to the forum from a former AF Aviator (F-4s) and current Civilian PM. If you showed him Military ID, I wonder why he asked for your rank; other than that, you went beyond what you're legally obligated to do, but if the cops were polite and respectful, no harm no foul.
    Thanks! I think he was trying to verify in his own way that I was legitimately military - like if I knew what was on my ID or not. It is very amateur of him and I was slightly irritated that he asked me my rank.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Parker, CO, , USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Dynamite Rabbit wrote:
    ilovejetnoise777 wrote:
    The reason they ask for an ID is so they can make sure that there is nothing that prevents you from legally owning a weapon. That's why you have to provide them with your ID when asked.

    This made perfect sense to me.
    So if you're walking down the street with your kids, it's OK for them to demand ID to make sure you aren't legally prevented from being around children?

    Or to stop you in your car for the sole purpose of making sure you have a license?

    It's exactly the same, and no, they can't do that.
    You argue a very good point. I really don't know. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they were responding to a call so they had to initiate contact with me and since my possession of the weapon was apparent, they needed to verify.

    If I was walking down the street with my kids and a cop happened to drive by, he has absolutely no reasonable cause to stop me and demand identification. There is no apparent action to warrant his contact with me. I wasn't touching my kids inappropriately or anything, which would have caused him to dig deeper and see if I am legally allowed to be around kids. I did nothing to attract that kind of attention.

    But with the OC incident, the thing I did was that I legally Open Carried my weapon which an ignorant someone brought to the attention of the LEOs, who in turn verified that I am legally allowed to possess a firearm.

    I see those cops frequently, I'm going to bounce this off of them and see what they say. If I can't get something logical out of them, I know their boss and can ask him.


    The bottom line is, I don't like to argue with people unless they are being a-holes. But when I do argue, I don't back down. I pick my battles and usually cops are not people I like to get into it with - except if we're sitting somewhere and talking about politics or something. Then I'll let him have a piece of my mind. But not when I'm the subject of a 911 call.

  17. #17
    Regular Member entartet17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    ilovejetnoise777 wrote:
    I just spoke with a Parker PD officer regarding those other officers asking me for an ID and he said that even though OC is perfectly legal, it's perfectly legal for citizens who are legally allowed to own a weapon. The reason they ask for an ID is so they can make sure that there is nothing that prevents you from legally owning a weapon. That's why you have to provide them with your ID when asked.

    This made perfect sense to me.
    Regardless of what Parker PD says, the CANNOT demand your ID for OCing.

    16-3-103. Stopping of suspect.
    (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

    According to People v. Archuleta, 616 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1980), The police may detain and require identification of a person if they have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the person is involved in criminal conduct.

    In order to lawfully detain an individual for questioning: (1) A police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime; (2) the purpose of the detention must be reasonable; and (3) the character of the detention must be reasonable when considered in light of the purpose. People v. Stevens, 183 Colo. 399, 517 P.2d 1336 (1973); People v. Montoya, 185 Colo. 299, 524 P.2d 76 (1974); People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1989); People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989); People v. Sutherland, 886 P.2d 681 (Colo. 1994); People v. Rodriguez, 924 P.2d 1100 (Colo. App. 1996), aff'd, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997).

    Also, according to Florida v. J.L. 529 U.S. 266 (2000):
    "An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person."

    The Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) said that detaining a man observed by police as openly carrying a rifle on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment.

    And, of course, there's the well known case MATTHEW A. ST. JOHN v. DAVID McCOLLEY and THE SIX UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE ALAMOGORDO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, in which the United States District Court for New Mexico ruled:
    "Moreover, Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.

    "For example, in United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit found that an individual's lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure. In Ubiles, officers seized Ubiles during a crowded celebration after they received a tip that he was carrying a gun. Id. at 214. Officers did so even though no applicable law prohibited Ubiles from carrying a firearm during the celebration. Id. at 218.

    "Holding that the search violated Ubiles' Fourth Amendment rights, the court noted that the situation was no different than if the informant had told officers "that Ubiles possessed a wallet . . . and the authorities had stopped him for that reason."

    "There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs of freedom" -- Garet Garrett, The Revolution Was (1938)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466

    Post imported post

    I'm glad to see this conversation go the route it has on presenting ID. That was one of the things that stood out to me about the OP and I wasn't 100% sure of the local PD's legal right to demand ID.

    Thanks for the clarification.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276

    Post imported post

    I think the second best thing about all this is that YOU did what YOU thought was right.

    I think the BEST thing about this is that you are willing to become educated about your rights. This is awesome and speaks volumes about your character (that and your service.)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Parker, CO, , USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    entartet17 wrote:
    ilovejetnoise777 wrote:
    I just spoke with a Parker PD officer regarding those other officers asking me for an ID and he said that even though OC is perfectly legal, it's perfectly legal for citizens who are legally allowed to own a weapon. The reason they ask for an ID is so they can make sure that there is nothing that prevents you from legally owning a weapon. That's why you have to provide them with your ID when asked.

    This made perfect sense to me.
    Regardless of what Parker PD says, the CANNOT demand your ID for OCing.

    16-3-103. Stopping of suspect.
    (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

    According to People v. Archuleta, 616 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1980), The police may detain and require identification of a person if they have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the person is involved in criminal conduct.

    In order to lawfully detain an individual for questioning: (1) A police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime; (2) the purpose of the detention must be reasonable; and (3) the character of the detention must be reasonable when considered in light of the purpose. People v. Stevens, 183 Colo. 399, 517 P.2d 1336 (1973); People v. Montoya, 185 Colo. 299, 524 P.2d 76 (1974); People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1989); People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989); People v. Sutherland, 886 P.2d 681 (Colo. 1994); People v. Rodriguez, 924 P.2d 1100 (Colo. App. 1996), aff'd, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997).

    Also, according to Florida v. J.L. 529 U.S. 266 (2000):
    "An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person."

    The Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) said that detaining a man observed by police as openly carrying a rifle on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment.

    And, of course, there's the well known case MATTHEW A. ST. JOHN v. DAVID McCOLLEY and THE SIX UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE ALAMOGORDO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, in which the United States District Court for New Mexico ruled:
    "Moreover, Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.

    "For example, in United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit found that an individual's lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure. In Ubiles, officers seized Ubiles during a crowded celebration after they received a tip that he was carrying a gun. Id. at 214. Officers did so even though no applicable law prohibited Ubiles from carrying a firearm during the celebration. Id. at 218.

    "Holding that the search violated Ubiles' Fourth Amendment rights, the court noted that the situation was no different than if the informant had told officers "that Ubiles possessed a wallet . . . and the authorities had stopped him for that reason."
    Hey thank you for sharing this!

    I did speak to two other Parker PD officers this morning about this whole ID for OC thing. I'll save everyone the time and post the talking points here:

    1- They did acknowledge I don't have to show them ID or talk to them. In which case they would ask me to leave the area and even then I don't have to because it's a public place.

    2- I asked them how is it any different than being pulled over simply for driving a vehicle to see if I'm legally allowed to drive a car. They said, "well it's not a felony to drive a vehicle when you're not supposed to." I understand where they're coming from, but I completely disagree.

    3- Their whole premise seemed to have been centered around looking for behavior outside of the norm. Again, I see their point, but don't agree with it whatsoever. Just because most people are either unwilling or indifferent towards the carrying of firearms, doesn't make my behavior "out of the norm" when I do choose to carry. It is a right given to me and practiced by many for as long as the constitution has been around.

    4- I told them, "what if when I was on the phone to my friend, I just gave the officers my ID and told them I don't want to talk to them and they can go do their check on me on their own and then leave me alone." They paused and said "well we'd think there is something fishy going on and would probably call in a third squad car for help." I did express my astonishment to that comment.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    ilovejetnoise777 wrote:
    But with the OC incident, the thing I did was that I legally Open Carried my weapon which an ignorant someone brought to the attention of the LEOs, who in turn verified that I am legally allowed to possess a firearm.
    I fully support you picking your battles. I think the point people are trying to make (particularly for lurkers) is that the LEO doesn't have probable cause or RAS just because an ignorant person brings it to their attention.Nor to establish you're "real military" before you verbally ID'd yourself as such. What business is it of theirs if you're on your way to a paintball match?

    To further Rabbit's example, if I'm verbally disciplining my children in public (which any parent of 5 and unders can testify happens FREQUENTLY) should I need to worry that an ignorant someone is going to call 911 about a man mentally abusing children? If the LEO arrives and my kids are sitting quietly on a bench while I complete my transaction wherever, does the LEO have probable cause to ask for my ID and see if I've kidnapped my kids from an imaginary ex with a restraining order against me? Should I need to worry about a CPS contact getting filed on me?

    I agree, pick your battles. OC and parents whokeep their kids from beingterrors on society should benormalized.There areLEO behaviors or cultural norms I'm going to dig my heels in about. Wasn't it Ghandi who said "Become the change you want to see?"

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    I just hate to see people speak as if the officers are automatically adversaries. I'm in that "I've got nothing to hide..." group of people. I'll inform the officer that, although I may lawfully refuse, I am providing my ID to satisfy the request of the officer. This says to the cop.. He knows his rights.. but is going to play ball so we can all get out of here quickly and without a hitch. He knows his rights... and is politely providing ID for officer safety. Something like that.

    Unless I'm truly busy or in a hurry. Then I really will just remind the officer that there is no lawful requirement to show ID or to engage in conversation.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Parker, CO, , USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    I just hate to see people speak as if the officers are automatically adversaries.¬* I'm in that "I've got nothing to hide..." group of people.¬* I'll inform the officer that, although I may lawfully refuse, I am providing my ID to satisfy the request of the officer.¬* This says to the cop..¬* He knows his rights.. but is going to play ball so we can all get out of here quickly and without a hitch.¬* He knows his rights... and is politely providing ID for officer safety.¬* Something like that.¬*

    Unless I'm truly busy or in a hurry.¬* Then I really will just remind the officer that there is no lawful requirement to show ID or to engage in conversation.
    I totally understand what you're saying, I do. But here's the deal: officer safety does not override the constitution. They made a decision when they joined the PD. I made a decision to join the Armed Forces. I have to maintain worldwide deployability 24/7/365. I can't leave town without taking leave. So these are the costs I counted when I joined the Air Force. He knows being on the enforcement side of the law, you're making yourself a target to the bad guys. So with all due respect to all of them (and I don't say this condescendingly, I really do respect them) I am not going to show them an ID when I don't have to, just so they can feel safe talking to me. It's their problem if they don't feel safe, not mine. If they don't feel safe, they can go away. Simple as that.

    While I completely understand the officer safety issue, I absolutely don't buy it. It's their issue not mine. This is equal to me complaining to my superiors that I don't want to deploy to Afghanistan because a certain portion of the population (not all) are out to kill me there so I don't feel safe going into a situation like that. They would first laugh at me and then quickly find an appropriate UCMJ article under which they would charge me and then kick me out.

    I could still be nice an show them whatever, if I wanted to play ball but never so that I could help them feel safe.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    "I totally understand what you're saying, I do. But here's the deal: officer safety does not override the constitution"

    It is not unConstitutional to waive my rights to speedy trial, search, and my right to remain silent.

    Officer Safety does not override @#$%, You know? I am free to tell whoever I want what I want.

    Thank you for your extremely polite response. Very cool of you.

    Discretion

    Main Entry: dis·cre·tion
    Pronunciation: dis-ňąkre-sh…ôn
    Function: noun
    Date: 14th century

    1 : the quality of being discreet : circumspection; especially : cautious reserve in speech
    2 : ability to make responsible decisions
    3 a : individual choice or judgment <left the decision to his discretion> b : power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds <reached the age of discretion>
    4 : the result of separating or distinguishing

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Parker, CO, , USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    "I totally understand what you're saying, I do. But here's the deal: officer safety does not override the constitution"

    ¬* It is not unConstitutional to waive my rights to speedy trial, search, and my right to remain silent.

    Officer Safety does not override @#$%,¬* You know? I am free to tell whoever I want what I want.¬*

    Thank you for your extremely polite response.¬* Very cool of you.
    What's unconstitutional is for the officer to think that he has a right to see my ID for open carry - not for me to waive any of my rights.

    Every officer I spoke to regarding this said they will absolutely want to check my ID if I'm open carrying to see if I'm legally allowed to own a gun. That is what's unconstitutional because open carrying is as legal as, like someone else here said, carrying a cell phone. They don't ask for ID for that. Their justification for asking for ID for OC is that they need to feel safe and that I'm indeed allowed to have a gun. That's what they told me. So don't shoot the messenger here. I'm just sharing everything for everyone's benefit.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •