OK. I understand. Glad we cleared it up.
Now, we still have the question about whether some localities--towns, cities, counties have stop-and-identify ordinances. For example, in Northern VA, some localities have what are essentially stop-and-identify ordinances.
I can't keep up with which localities do and don't. Ten months from now, if I'm stopped in Manassas, VA, there is no way I'm going to clearly recall whether they have a stop-and-identify ordinance. Some of these ordinances have some pretty serious penalties.
We also have the other angle--how is the citizen going to know whether the cop really has RAS? The possible combination of circumstances reported to the cop, or observed by the cop, is nearly unlimited. For example, maybe the 911 caller said, "Man with holstered gun, but he keeps looking at the bank suspiciously." Wanta bet a pro-cop judge would later rule that enough for RAS? Or, maybe the 911 caller just lies and says the man with gun keeps touching the gun while glaring at passersby. Its not the facts as we view them. Its the information the cop has.
My solution to the nexus of those two problems--judging whether RAS exists + not knowing whether there is a local stop-and-identify ordinance--is to 1) determine whether I'm being detained, and 2) if I am being detained or my identity is being demanded, just hand over my ID while politely refusing consent.
This keeps me from being cited or arrested for violating some local ordinance I didn't know about, while my refused consent preserves my rights for this point in a formal complaint or lawsuit later.
You see, the cop is gonna learn my name when the formal complaint or lawsuit lands. So, I'm not all that concerned whether he learns my name during the encounter.
Also, cops usually demand an identity document, rather than verbal disclosure, and rather than request identity. I'm no expert who's read them all, but in my experience, its a rare stop-and-identify statute that compels giving an identity document. So, from the very first demand, "Lemme see your ID," I've probably got our hero-in-blue on making a demand for which he had no authority.
And, the final point that ties it all together is that there will be at least a formal complaint. That's my policy. Any police investigative encounter, even a consensual contact from a cop, over my OCd gun gets at least a formal complaint. Every time.
Now, you might say, "Whoa! That's too harsh." Before you do, also consider that police so frequently screw up something during even a consensual encounter, its likely I'll have some grist for a formal complaint anyway. By shifting to complaining every time, I'm not really adding all that much additional complaining. In short, carrying a gun, exercising the basic human right of self-defense, absolutely cannot be suspicious. If a cop sees my OCd gun and just feels he has to pay attention to me, he can observe from a distance. If he just can't resist contacting me, he'd better make not one single mistake about anything because his internal affairs bureau is going to hear about the encounter.
