When I person is open carrying and an officer asks the said person for I.D.

When a person is open carrying and an officer asks the said person for I.D.

I am sure that I am going to get lambasted for asking this question. But just mark it off to me being a dumb 50 year old fat that is use to calling the police (most of them at least) good guys.

When a person is open carrying and an officer asks the said person for I.D. I understand by our “Rights” we do not have to show them. If a law has not been violated or suspected of. But why do some legal carrying people tend to be obstinate and go with the “Am I being detained?” stance?

If this continues to go on for long the laws will be change as to allow the LEO’s to ask legally for I.D. on an open carry person.

So I ask why is it so bad to show I.D. take the time to get to know the officer and then go on your way?

I have found it to be to my advantage in knowing a LEO when I lived in Iowa (several of them). I was clocked doing 125 MPH in a 45 MPH zone by a police helicopter. A friend LEO knew it was me and took the call because of that. She made me park my car in the garage for two weeks. Yes! I got grounded by the cops at the age of 42 years old. But if I was a jack ass in the past I am sure I would have been nailed and rightly so.

Again I have to ask, am I missing something? Is there an advantage in being stubborn to a LEO and not cooperating when asked for I.D. while open carrying? This really is a true question and I ask because I don’t understand why people do this. I do not want to start a fight and I am not planning on trying to debate an answear either. I am just really curious.

First of all, be careful. Laws vary from State to State. In Alabama we NEVER have to show ID. If an officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that I have committed, am committing, or am about to commit a crime, then he may demand my name and address. Theoretically, even though the law does not say, I must answer. The laws where you are will likely differ.

Secondly, have you been unlawfully harassed by an officer? I have. I turned over ID. The officer was polite, and so was I. Still, I lost two hours of my life to the detention and suffered an unlawful seizure of my firearm during which the serial numbers were likely unlawfully run. The next time I am stopped, I will be sterile (no concealed pistol license, no driver's license) and will be recording the interaction. If an officer is going to violate my rights again, he will have to do it more blatantly and with less cooperation from me that might be mistaken for consent.

And, there will be consequences for the officer and his department.

4th amendment!!

they bashed me for saying if asked for ID, I would show it, and made it seem as though I'm some sort of traitor and usurping the powers of the Bill of Rights for doing so.



as a matter of widely held belief,
giving up your ID does usurp the bill of rights!
specifically, the 4th amendment right, to be free from unreasonable search and seizures!
every time a law abiding citizen gives up ID at the whim of LEO,
it teaches all LEO that they can demand ID, from ANYBODY, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME!!!!
STOP DOING THAT!!!
the cops have no right to know who you are unless, and until they have ARRESTED
you for a crime!!!
they have no right to arrest you for a crime unless, and until they have REASONABLE
ARTICULABLE SUSPICION of the crime you have committed!!!!

I have, at times been harassed by the cops because my hair is almost down to my belt. And from that I must be a drug addict and truth be told I use no drugs I don’t smoke or drink. It just seems to me that if a person refuses even if they are in the right the cop is not going to forget that and then the **** will really come at you. I don’t like having to answear questions when I did not do anything wrong either but to me it seems to be a no win situation. And it is also known that a cop will make up a story and there are cops that will back them up. The thin blue line I think they call it. The you’re really screwed, and with that I wonder if it would have been better to just show them who you were then file a report.

jcsftwre said:

I am sure that I am going to get lambasted for asking this question. But just mark it off to me being a dumb 50 year old fat that is use to calling the police (most of them at least) good guys.

When a person is open carrying and an officer asks the said person for I.D. I understand by our “Rights” we do not have to show them. If a law has not been violated or suspected of. But why do some legal carrying people tend to be obstinate and go with the “Am I being detained?” stance?

If this continues to go on for long the laws will be change as to allow the LEO’s to ask legally for I.D. on an open carry person.

So I ask why is it so bad to show I.D. take the time to get to know the officer and then go on your way?

I have found it to be to my advantage in knowing a LEO when I lived in Iowa (several of them). I was clocked doing 125 MPH in a 45 MPH zone by a police helicopter. A friend LEO knew it was me and took the call because of that. She made me park my car in the garage for two weeks. Yes! I got grounded by the cops at the age of 42 years old. But if I was a jack ass in the past I am sure I would have been nailed and rightly so.

Again I have to ask, am I missing something? Is there an advantage in being stubborn to a LEO and not cooperating when asked for I.D. while open carrying? This really is a true question and I ask because I don’t understand why people do this. I do not want to start a fight and I am not planning on trying to debate an answear either. I am just really curious.

Click to expand...

I think that if you spend a little time reading and studying the Bill of Rights, you will come to understand that we as citizens are entitled to ALL those rights, all of the time. We have rights that allow us to be secure in our persons and possessions. To be free of unwarranted searches and seizures. Any law enforcement officer that asks you to forfeit any right so that they can find something to use against you is no friend of yours. Or anyone else. They are predators. They are more a part of what is wrong with our society than they are any solution.

I don't carry for attention. I am not so lonely that I would welcome an interaction with a cop just to bring meaning to my pathetic life. If I get that lonely, there are 900 numbers to call. They might charge me 20 dollars a minute to tell me what I want to hear, but at least they aren't holding me up while they look for a way to lock me up.

Heres a short answer: Any cop that has taken the oath to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and approaches me without regard for my rights to privacy and freedom from unwarranted search and seizure is nothing more than a criminal with a badge.

jcsftwre said:

SNIP Again I have to ask, am I missing something? Is there an advantage in being stubborn to a LEO and not cooperating when asked for I.D. while open carrying? This really is a true question and I ask because I don’t understand why people do this. I do not want to start a fight and I am not planning on trying to debate an answear either. I am just really curious.

Click to expand...

Things have changed in policing over the years. To find out more, you could google Radley Balko. It is one of the subject areas he covers. Cops are a lot different today than Malloy and Reed in Adam 12. Some of them, any way. Enough of them.

That only addressed some cops. Permit me to address "non-cooperation" with even the good cops.

First, you have to see through the lie called "non-cooperation". This is a favorite lie by police. "The suspect was uncooperative." It even shows up in police statements to the press. "Uncooperative" is just spin for the "suspect exercised his rights." It can include more, of course. But, that is the gist. For perspective, lets compare how some people "not cooperate" with cops against people who just exercise their rights. Some people "not cooperate" by punching the cop, spitting, trying to stab, trying to shoot, running and forcing the cop to chase through backyards where he can whack a clothesline or bark a shin or twist an ankle, run away at high speed in a car where the cop has to give chase at high and dangerous speed, etc.

Exercising one's rights can never, ever be allowed to be the subject of criticism by government. That police try to put a negative spin on it tells volumes. When I refuse to identify myself to a cop I am cooperating to the full extent required by our laws.

Just for a little more perspective, something over a million Americans have died defending these rights. I'm not going to spit on their graves by waiving those rights the first time a cop gets nosy.

Also, for perspective, consider that a genuinely professional cop who fully supports constitutional rights will respect an identity refusal. There won't be any nonsense about badgering the citizen, no sneaky conversational tactics to get him to waive his right to refuse identity (where it still exists). The genuinely professional cop who fully supports the rights that made this country a beacon of freedom to the world may not like it; but, he will respect it.

Now, some OCers just hate government intrusion and want to push back. But, there are deeper reasons.

As a fundamental reason, consider that an OCer is merely exercising his basic human right to self-defense--basic human right of being able to keep himself alive. As far as I am concerned a cop who contacts me even consensually to investigate me just proved an intolerable attitude: that he thinks exercising the basic human right of self-defense justifies suspicion. Rubbish. What's next? "Oh, that one is breathing. All breathers are capable of crime, lets investigate"?

Perhaps one of the biggest reasons is that a citizen may not find out the cop is a bad cop until it is too late. We have heard on this very forum the police dash cam audio of a cop who was very professional and friendly toward an OCer at the beginning of the contact. But, moments later, back at the car, she said to her partner words to the effect, "There has got to be something we can nail this guy for." We have numerous first hand reports, some with OCer audio, of cops violating 4th Amendment (search and seizure) rights merely for lawfully carrying the means of self-defense. A few of these have become lawsuits. It stretches credulity to breaking to believe that those cops violated the 4A for the first and only time. So, if one cannot be sure until possibly too late whether the cop is good or bad, it makes sense to exercise all rights during a police encounter. The identity refusal is just one of several being exercised under this rationale.

Another angle is the conviction that government only has the power granted. If no power is granted legislatively to demand even verbal identification, then no power exists for the cop to demand, badger, or intimidate anybody, not just OCers. Yet, cops do it all the time. "I wanna see some ID!" They do it so commonly that they seem to have completely forgotten they have no authority for it. Of course, I am here talking about states that do not have stop-and-identify statutes.

One of the biggest discoveries we made as a group regarding policing was not the willingness of cops to violate 2nd Amendment rights. It was the extent of willingness of cops to violate 4A and 5A rights. And/or to try to badger, harass, or intimidate into waiving a 4A or 5A right. Perhaps the biggest of all was the extent of willingness of cops to enforce their opinion and prejudice against mere citizens being able to protect themselves. This, in my mind, was huge. Who cares whether a few cops violate the 2nd Amendment by illegally seizing a firearm here or there? Courts can always force the gun's return. Cops are almost nothing without the legislature's or governor's orders to register guns, seize guns, or regulate possession, and the courts' willingness to make it stick. But, we have numerous reports of cops who make up their own law, do what they feel like, and violate enumerated constitutional rights in the process. Meaning we have numerous reports of cops subverting the legislative and judicial controls by doing their own thing. And, you can bet the farm that OCers are not the only people who they are willing to do this to. So, some are also putting cops back in their corral, or reminding them where the corral is, by refusing identity. "Hey! Guess what, Officer. There are some people who still know their rights and expect them to be respected. Stay on your side of the line, pal."

The State of Washington is not generally recognized as a "Stop and Identify" state. To the best of my knowledge there is no statutory authority for an officer to demand that you identify yourself barring the possible exception of you performing a licensed activity such as driving (and I add that because I do not know Washington's stance on the Fourth Amendment vs "license/insurance" roadblocks.)

When one looks at the history of the Fourth Amendment, I think it's obvious that it was written as a limit on the authority of government (back then, the "King's Men", lobster backs, red coats, and today the police) and almost specifically written to protect citizens who were doing things that agents of the government "didn't approve of". If you are not currently committing, have recently committed, or about to commit a crime why should the police think they have any authority over your life?

Is it important to resist the urge to succumb to the supposed authority of the police to demand that you identify yourself?

Only you can answer that for yourself, but for me, yes, it is very important. Any unwanted and unwarranted intrusion into the freedom of the Citizen must be resisted for it is from small chips that one's liberty is eroded.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Any unwanted and unwarranted intrusion into the freedom of the Citizen must be resisted for it is from small chips that one's liberty is eroded.

Click to expand...

THIS... is why we want to insist upon our rights and that they not be violated.

It is normal human behavior to try to be nice and helpful, and even subservient, to those in positions of authority. We frequently hear people say things such as, "Oh don't be absurd. What's wrong with showing your ID?" or "Don't get so worked up about rights." or other similar little quips. It all seems good and fine up until a Katrina takes place and the police and National Guard are pounding at your door, wanting to confiscate your firearms. The Mr. Niceguy is no longer your friend then, is he?

I suggest reading "You & The Police!" by Boston T. Party. never forget who holds the real authority and power in this nation.

Updated in 2009

http://javelinpress.com/you_and_the_police.html
New for 2009
You & The Police!

$16.00

5 1/2" x 8 1/2", softcover, 168 pages
ISBN 1-888766-09-3
published February, 2005

ABOUT YOU AND THE POLICE!

Until now, the average American has lacked a simple, up-to-date summary of constitutional law regarding confrontations with the police. More and more peaceable, law-abiding folks are being caught up in the widening police dragnet of roadblocks, checkpoints, searches, intrusive questioning and civil forfeitures. Americans have long needed a clear explanation of exactly where our rights end and executive power begins, especially if you travel or carry a gun.

More than a legal handbook, You & The Police! explains precisely how to win police confrontations using: sample dialogue, "what-if" scenarios, and practical tips. Armed with this book, you will know just how to avoid traffic tickets, bogus searches, roadside delays, and general harassment. Probably 90% of erroneous civil forfeitures from honest folks could have been avoided had they known about this book. There is no reason for us to be bluffed or intimidated by the police any longer.

jcsftwre said:

I am sure that I am going to get lambasted for asking this question. But just mark it off to me being a dumb 50 year old fat that is use to calling the police (most of them at least) good guys.

When a person is open carrying and an officer asks the said person for I.D. I understand by our “Rights” we do not have to show them. If a law has not been violated or suspected of. But why do some legal carrying people tend to be obstinate and go with the “Am I being detained?” stance?

If this continues to go on for long the laws will be change as to allow the LEO’s to ask legally for I.D. on an open carry person.

So I ask why is it so bad to show I.D. take the time to get to know the officer and then go on your way?

I have found it to be to my advantage in knowing a LEO when I lived in Iowa (several of them). I was clocked doing 125 MPH in a 45 MPH zone by a police helicopter. A friend LEO knew it was me and took the call because of that. She made me park my car in the garage for two weeks. Yes! I got grounded by the cops at the age of 42 years old. But if I was a jack ass in the past I am sure I would have been nailed and rightly so.

Again I have to ask, am I missing something? Is there an advantage in being stubborn to a LEO and not cooperating when asked for I.D. while open carrying? This really is a true question and I ask because I don’t understand why people do this. I do not want to start a fight and I am not planning on trying to debate an answear either. I am just really curious.

Click to expand...

A real life example of why showing your ID can have consequences.

3 years ago I was legally open carrying in Portland, Maine. Three Police officers stopped me with guns drawn. They illegally searched me and took my ID and my Pistol without my consent. I was then arrested for carrying a concealed weapon even though my firearm was openly carried in a serpa holster. The police reported the incident to the local media and my name was on three local news networks for two days. My boss saw the news report and I was suspended from my job without pay for a month pending the outcome of the charges. The charges were dropped by the DA when they finally assigned one to the case. I lost $3000 in wages and $1500 in attorney's fees even though I had broken no law.

Providing your ID can have unintended consequences beyond the scope of the LEO stop you are involved in. When you provide your ID, your name goes in the report. Which can then be FOIA requested by the media who can then smear your name all over the nightly news. Uninvolved people see that report, draw conclusions about your character based on their fears or misconceptions, and you lose your job over it.

I'd rather stick up for my rights when appropriate. If the LEO has no RAS or PC to detain me, then leave me alone. I also believe there is an appropriate way, and a non-appropriate way to refuse to ID. Stay calm, firm, and confident in your knowledge of the law and don't act confrontational with the officers.

Here's audio of one of my refusals

Nice try!

gutshot said:

I will admit that if you intend to repeatedly break the law, currying favor with the local LEO's might be a good idea. That may be the only thing to keep you out of trouble. Most of us here are law abiding citizens and value our rights. We rely on our innocence and the proper use of police power to keep us out of trouble. Everyone should be treated the same, if you are a buddy of the cop or not. If the LEO's violate peoples' rights everyday and everyone complies and no one complains they soon start to think it should be that way all the time with everyone. This is the way police states get started. It is up to us to keep them in line. You can only keep the rights that you are willing to fight for. Some day you may want to assert some right and your buddies in uniform will stop liking you when you start saying "no". How do you think you can keep your 2nd Amendment rights when you so casually surrender your 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendment rights? If your police officer friend is so eager to short cut you privacy rights, your rights to remain silent, your right to be secure in your person and papers, why would he stop there? His job would be so much easier without those pesky rights.

Click to expand...

Nice try guy! I have no police record and in that I have a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) and overt the whole macho thing of look at me I have an S&W 50 Cal thing. I can understand in defending rights that is why I am retired military. So far no one has even come close to answering my question yet. Most everyone (not all) have jumped on the I know my rights crap. Why don’t YOU just get a CCW? Or is your police record holding you back from that?

When all of you are being recorded as being criminals I'll just move along while carrying both of my guns undetected.
Thanks for taking the heat.

Have you not heard

Have you not heard “the loss of rights is not on the street, but at the voting booth.” Get out and vote and don’t allow the laws to change and take are rights away! Simple!
(Misguided little lemmings.)

jcsftwre said:

Have you not heard “the loss of rights is not on the street, but at the voting booth.” Get out and vote and don’t allow the laws to change and take are rights away! Simple!
(Misguided little lemmings.)

Click to expand...

The loss of rights may be at the voting booth, but the VIOLATION of rights already established is on the street. If no one stands up to the violation or the right, then do we really have the right?

jcsftwre said:

Nice try guy! I have no police record and in that I have a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) and overt the whole macho thing of look at me I have an S&W 50 Cal thing. I can understand in defending rights that is why I am retired military. So far no one has even come close to answering my question yet. Most everyone (not all) have jumped on the I know my rights crap. Why don’t YOU just get a CCW? Or is your police record holding you back from that?

When all of you are being recorded as being criminals I'll just move along while carrying both of my guns undetected.
Thanks for taking the heat.

Click to expand...

The nose-under-the-tent syndrome. Pretty soon they'll have their whole family tagging along. You may do as you see fit and that is all good and well. Just don't chastise others who value their God-given rights enough to exercise them when cause presents itself.

boyscout--

Good job. Way to have the recorder going during the stop. I particularly applaud how, when they would not answer your "free to go" question, you stated that you were now assuming you were free to go and started walking away. If it is clear that you are asking and it is clear that they are choosing not to answer, then your action is seems to be the best course.

Just a few suggestions:

Answer none of their questions, not even whether you are a resident of the State.

When they say that they are trying to identify you to determine if they have RAS, remind them that they must have RAS first, then they may identify you. (Not true in States where the law requires all citizens to identify themselves when asked by an officer--unconstitutional, IMO.) Good on you for having legal references ready to hand to the officers.

It's kind of hard to be repetitive, especially when they keep changing their tack, but stick to the standard questions:

Am I free to go?
Am I being detained?
What specific crime do you have reasonable ARTICULABLE suspicion that I am committing?

Remember folks, the ARTICULABLE part means they need to name the specific crime of which you are reasonably suspected of having committed. Many officers are unwilling to be pinned down on this during a MWAG stop.

Again, though, great job, much better than I did during my encounter.

boyscout399 said:

A real life example of why showing your ID can have consequences.

3 years ago I was legally open carrying in Portland, Maine. Three Police officers stopped me with guns drawn. They illegally searched me and took my ID and my Pistol without my consent. I was then arrested for carrying a concealed weapon even though my firearm was openly carried in a serpa holster. The police reported the incident to the local media and my name was on three local news networks for two days. My boss saw the news report and I was suspended from my job without pay for a month pending the outcome of the charges. The charges were dropped by the DA when they finally assigned one to the case. I lost $3000 in wages and $1500 in attorney's fees even though I had broken no law.

Providing your ID can have unintended consequences beyond the scope of the LEO stop you are involved in. When you provide your ID, your name goes in the report. Which can then be FOIA requested by the media who can then smear your name all over the nightly news. Uninvolved people see that report, draw conclusions about your character based on their fears or misconceptions, and you lose your job over it.

I'd rather stick up for my rights when appropriate. If the LEO has no RAS or PC to detain me, then leave me alone. I also believe there is an appropriate way, and a non-appropriate way to refuse to ID. Stay calm, firm, and confident in your knowledge of the law and don't act confrontational with the officers.

Here's audio of one of my refusals

Click to expand...

Oh come on. Just cooperate, show your ID, give them what they want and they'll let you be on your way. (heh, heh).

I listened to your audio and thought you handled yourself well. No one got nasty, you or the LEO's, and no one turned to threats (LEO's). The LEO's did appear to overstep their bounds a might. Seems they were bound and determined to see your ID. In your prior incident, too bad you didn't receive just compensation for time lost at work and legal fees. I would have wanted that and perhaps some punitive damages as well just to send a message to them about who is really supposed to be in charge.

jcsftwre said:

Nice try guy! I have no police record and in that I have a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) and overt the whole macho thing of look at me I have an S&W 50 Cal thing. I can understand in defending rights that is why I am retired military. So far no one has even come close to answering my question yet. Most everyone (not all) have jumped on the I know my rights crap. Why don’t YOU just get a CCW? Or is your police record holding you back from that?

When all of you are being recorded as being criminals I'll just move along while carrying both of my guns undetected.
Thanks for taking the heat.

Click to expand...

I would just ask you why you are bothering to post here?

The point of this site is OC. We do not mind civil and rational debate of CC vs. OC, but we kind of expect you to act like an adult and not insult us in the process. If you'd like to have a rational debate, may I suggest you present your arguments in a new thread in the Open Carry Questions forum? I promise a lively debate and civil, rational replies from most of us, including me.

Otherwise, we have an ignore button here. I use it when I find a posters words to be uncivil, irrational, insulting, and generally not worthy of wasting time to read. If you'd like folks to take you seriously, take my suggestion. If you just want to stir up trouble, I won't participate.

So, what is your preference?

eye95 said:

I would just ask you why you are bothering to post here?

The point of this site is OC. We do not mind civil and rational debate of CC vs. OC, but we kind of expect you to act like an adult and not insult us in the process. If you'd like to have a rational debate, may I suggest you present your arguments in a new thread in the Open Carry Questions forum? I promise a lively debate and civil, rational replies from most of us, including me.

Otherwise, we have an ignore button here. I use it when I find a posters words to be uncivil, irrational, insulting, and generally not worthy of wasting time to read. If you'd like folks to take you seriously, take my suggestion. If you just want to stir up trouble, I won't participate.

So, what is your preference?

Click to expand...

Yep.

I guess it is to where we pick our battles. You choose to fight and argue with LEO’s while I take an “Active” stance in fighting Meth cookers, drug dealers and gang bangers.

To that end is why I have a need to carry at all. I have two different gang bangers that have made it very clear that I am a dead man walking. They are of one of the largest gangs in the U.S.

See I choose to make a stand against them so the neighborhood will be safer for your children; I have no children of my own.

So instead of baiting the cops to video tape them I video tape drug deals, instead of taking LEO’s to court I take Bangers to court.
I guess it is up to the individual to determine what side of the law they choose to stand on!

Note:
I have done a fast search for a law that was changed without going to a vote and I find none. All constitutional law changes have been put to a vote first.

I could be mistaken but I could not find such evidence.
So instead of baiting cops go vote!

jcsftwre said:

I guess it is to where we pick our battles. You choose to fight and argue with LEO’s while I take an “Active” stance in fighting Meth cookers, drug dealers and gang bangers.

To that end is why I have a need to carry at all. I have two different gang bangers that have made it very clear that I am a dead man walking. They are of one of the largest gangs in the U.S.

See I choose to make a stand against them so the neighborhood will be safer for your children; I have no children of my own.

So instead of baiting the cops to video tape them I video tape drug deals, instead of taking LEO’s to court I take Bangers to court.
I guess it is up to the individual to determine what side of the law they choose to stand on!

Note:
I have done a fast search for a law that was changed without going to a vote and I find none. All constitutional law changes have been put to a vote first.

I could be mistaken but I could not find such evidence.
So instead of baiting cops go vote!

Click to expand...

The vast majority of us have no wish to bait cops, but I know there are a few who like to wallow in the adversarial mud with them... unfortunately. Please understand, we wish you no ill will of any kind and for me, I hope and pray you are able to handle the bangers whom you said are bent on your failing well being. Stay armed, stay aware, and stay safe.