Can Officer Force ID....

[samkent]

Ranting on all this ID crap

Buy beer? Show ID, yet we don't complain
Buy Smokes? Show ID, yet we don't complain
Get pulled over for speeding? Show ID, yet we don't complain
Cash a check? Show ID, yet we don't complain
In for a drug test? Show ID, yet we don't complain
Taking out a car loan? Show ID, yet we don't complain
Mortgage? Show ID, yet we don't complain
Purchasing a gun? Show ID, yet we don't complain

Have a gun and law enforcement asks for us to show ID and then becomes "Infringing on my rights!"

I for one grow tired of this whole ID thing. Yeah, flame me, ignore me, whatever.

JUST GIVE EM YOUR F'n ID

Ok, I'm done.

I get your drift.
However:
In all of your examples YOU are asking for something. Be it a product or service.
In the case we are talking about it's the POLICE who are asking you for something.

Not to bring race into this topic. But if we were stopped/questioned/frisked as much as others say they are stopped we would be marching on Columbus.

 

[papa bear]

EYE and BRIKUZ. if you don't like people outside of your state, commenting on this forum then you take your money and make your own forum. there are people a lot smarter then you two. believe me i would listen to CITIZEN all day long.

so if you don't like it . bite me

 

[JustaShooter]

EYE and BRIKUZ. if you don't like people outside of your state, commenting on this forum then you take your money and make your own forum.

It isn't a non-Ohio thing, it's a troll from CT thing.

 

[SteveInCO]

It isn't a non-Ohio thing, it's a troll from CT thing.

Thus far they've not complained about me, all the way over in Colorado.

 

[eye95]

It isn't a non-Ohio thing, it's a troll from CT thing.

Bull.....


...seye.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

Thus far they've not complained about me, all the way over in Colorado.

Troll from CO alert!

j/k

Your contributions are valuable. Thanks for stopping by.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

EYE and BRIKUZ. if you don't like people outside of your state, commenting on this forum then you take your money and make your own forum. there are people a lot smarter then you two. believe me i would listen to CITIZEN all day long.

so if you don't like it . bite me

Let me correct that for you:

eye and BriKuz, if you don't like people from outside of your state commenting on this forum, then you take your money and make your own forum. There are people a lot smarter than you two. Believe me; I would listen to Citizen all day long.

So, if you don't like it, bite me.

papa bear, if you don't like people criticizing trolls, then take your money and make your own forum. Bite me whether you like it or not.

BTW, I enjoy reading Citizen's posts, even if I don't always (actually, rarely) agree with his precise POV. Also, I wonder what he thinks about your implying that his posts are on a par with the CT trolls posts!

Oh, and there are people who can write a helluva lot better than you, BriKuz and I, among many others. Have a nice day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

On edit: Citizen also writes a helluva lot better than you. And I essentially agree with and welcome his post in this thread. I would also welcome a dissenting opinion from him in this thread. It is the usual quality of his thinking and communication skills that I appreciate, even when not his opinion.

 

[Werz]

Unless Fourth Amendment case law clearly protects you, its open to police interpretation. And, later, your trial judge's interpretation at the suppression hearing. And, if his ruling goes against you, then you're going to end up paying for an appeal.

Welcome to the real world of constitutional jurisprudence. "Bright line" rules are rare. The law is never as simple and straightforward as it seems to be on teh intrawebz; never has been, never will be.

 

[papa bear]

Let me correct that for you:



papa bear, if you don't like people criticizing trolls, then take your money and make your own forum. Bite me whether you like it or not.

BTW, I enjoy reading Citizen's posts, even if I don't always (actually, rarely) agree with his precise POV. Also, I wonder what he thinks about your implying that his posts are on a par with the CT trolls posts!

Oh, and there are people who can write a helluva lot better than you, BriKuz and I, among many others. Have a nice day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

On edit: Citizen also writes a helluva lot better than you. And I essentially agree with and welcome his post in this thread. I would also welcome a dissenting opinion from him in this thread. It is the usual quality of his thinking and communication skills that I appreciate, even when not his opinion.

That's true. he does write better then i do. it could be possible that he has more edumacation then i do. but it is a fact i just don't give a darn about my writing skills. drove my collage professors crazy. I'll spend 10 hours counting money to get it right. some people are English people some are math people. since i am dyslectic i probably don't do too bad (thank god for spell check)

but any way even if this is in an OH forum it is still a matter that concerns us all. getting out side opinion is what made the western migration smarter.

 

[SteveInCO]

but any way even if this is in an OH forum it is still a matter that concerns us all. getting out side opinion is what made the western migration smarter.

It depends; if someone (not you) comes in and opines on Ohio law out of ignorance of the law AND the situation/context of Ohio, their opinion is not all that valuable as all it really is, is them telling people in Ohio how Ohio ought to be, not how it is.

 

[Werz]

It depends; if someone (not you) comes in and opines on Ohio law out of ignorance of the law AND the situation/context of Ohio, their opinion is not all that valuable as all it really is, is them telling people in Ohio how Ohio ought to be, not how it is.

I have no problem with people proclaiming how the law ought to be, so long as they are clear about that. I take exception when they unilaterally and erroneously proclaim how the law is, simply because that's how they believe it should be.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

It depends on how the law is worded. If the crime is carrying concealed and the license is a defense, then, yes, detecting CC is RAS. If the crime is CC without a license, then, no, spotting the firearm, without reason to believe that the carrier does not have a license, is not RAS.

Heed Eye95's words, it indeed depends on how the law is written.
Some laws are written "A person must possess a valid license to carry/carry concealed... " and RAS would be needed to suspect the individual was not in possession of a license.

Other laws are written "It is illegal to carry a firearm..." an then lists various defenses to the charge that include possession of a license or being authorized by other statute.

Most automobile driving statutes are written in the form of the first which is why it is improper for an officer to pull over random drivers "just to make sure they're licensed." Be aware of how the law is written and interpreted in your state.

 

[SteveInCO]

I have no problem with people proclaiming how the law ought to be, so long as they are clear about that. I take exception when they unilaterally and erroneously proclaim how the law is, simply because that's how they believe it should be.

Yes, precisely. The problem isn't so much someone saying "this is how it ought to be," rather it's saying "this is how it is" when it in fact, isn't. I guess I wasn't quite clear.

 

[OC for ME]

"Shall not apply" statements in the law are different than "is a defense against."

Werz:

By the same token, in Ohio, the vast majority of the population (7.6 million out of 11.5 million) is licensed to operate a motor vehicle. Conversely, there are only about 300,000 Ohioans who are licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Therefore, amongst the general population, licensure to operate a motor vehicle is clearly the default, while licensure to carry a concealed handgun clearly is not.

Phantom stat attack.

How many folks are estimated to own a handgun? Not how many licensed to CC as compared to licensed to drive. Since there is no way to know (I think) how many hand gun owners there are in Ohio your stat (comparison) is meaningless.

The MO population has ~160K CC licenses issued = about ~4% of the states population. OH population has ~300K CC licenses issued = about ~3% of the states population. So, using your math, it is more likely that a MO citizen is licensed and a OH citizen is not. Cops around MO don't seem to default to no CC license. If cops in OH do default to no CC license then that is where OH citizens need to focus their efforts to restore liberty in OH before they work to restore liberty via legislation.

It matters not the state of the law if some cops are willing break the law to violate your rights.

 

[Maverick9]

Not sure if we're still discussing what 'officers can demand', but some things that gall me are:

Them acting like they don't know the law and what they can ask.

Them not considering that the person they're stopping who might be armed has gone through FBI checks and doesn't have a DV arrest or any DUIs and STILL citing 'officer safety'.

Them asking things they have no standing to demand, like knowing you have a permit and instead of asking to SEE the permit and being done with it, they start asking 'are you armed, are there guns in the car, where is your gun, let me take it back to my squad', and act like they don't know that the only thing they are legally permitted is to demand to see your permit. PERIOD. They have no right to demand to see your firearm.

And we're talking not a reckless driving situation, we're talking an equipment violation (expired sticker), or a taillight out, or something minor like changing lanes without a signal on a completely clear road.

 

[eye95]

"Shall not apply" statements in the law are different than "is a defense against."

Phantom stat attack.

How many folks are estimated to own a handgun? Not how many licensed to CC as compared to licensed to drive. Since there is no way to know (I think) how many hand gun owners there are in Ohio your stat (comparison) is meaningless...

More importantly, from an honest statistical perspective, what percentage of folks carrying concealed are licensed? I'd estimate 99% or more, but surely high enough to be the "default status." As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to wager that the percentage of people who are walking about carrying concealed and who are licensed is higher than the percentage of people who are driving about and who are licensed. i.e. should an officer randomly stop 1000 drivers and 1000 concealed carriers, I submit that he will find more unlicensed drivers than unlicensed carriers.

 

[eye95]

Not sure if we're still discussing what 'officers can demand', but some things that gall me are:

Them acting like they don't know the law and what they can ask...

They don't know the law. They know the mythology that they pass along to each other. I routinely listen to a certain retired police officer flat-out misrepresent the law, making it say what he wants it to say.

 

[Werz]

"Shall not apply" statements in the law are different than "is a defense against."

Phantom stat attack.

How many folks are estimated to own a handgun? Not how many licensed to CC as compared to licensed to drive. Since there is no way to know (I think) how many hand gun owners there are in Ohio your stat (comparison) is meaningless.

The MO population has ~160K CC licenses issued = about ~4% of the states population. OH population has ~300K CC licenses issued = about ~3% of the states population. So, using your math, it is more likely that a MO citizen is licensed and a OH citizen is not. Cops around MO don't seem to default to no CC license. If cops in OH do default to no CC license then that is where OH citizens need to focus their efforts to restore liberty in OH before they work to restore liberty via legislation.

It matters not the state of the law if some cops are willing break the law to violate your rights.

More importantly, from an honest statistical perspective, what percentage of folks carrying concealed are licensed? I'd estimate 99% or more, but surely high enough to be the "default status." As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to wager that the percentage of people who are walking about carrying concealed and who are licensed is higher than the percentage of people who are driving about and who are licensed. i.e. should an officer randomly stop 1000 drivers and 1000 concealed carriers, I submit that he will find more unlicensed drivers than unlicensed carriers.

I believe there is a reasonably good likelihood that Ohio courts will operate from a presumption of unlawfulness for concealed carry. It is consistent with Ohio legal history, where concealed carry was generally unlawful and no licenses were available until 2004; it is consistent with the designated limitations on the Second Amendment set forth in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-638 (2008); and it is consistent with the fact that less than 5% of the general population of Ohio (I'm throwing in law enforcement and other government agents) is authorized to carry a concealed handgun. It is also worthy of note that you are required to carry your concealed handgun license if you are carrying a concealed handgun; that you may be arrested if you are found to be in possession of concealed handgun without the license in your possession; and even if you produce a valid license within ten days, you are still guilty of a minor misdemeanor for failing to carry it with you. R.C. 2923.126(A), 2923.12(F)(2)(a). "Issues surrounding articulable suspicion, let alone probable cause, have not yet been fleshed out in Ohio since the passage of recent laws concerning the carrying of firearms." State v. Young, 2011-Ohio-4875, at ¶42 (2nd Dist.) If you wish to carry in a manner which is authorized only by licensure or other exceptions, and if you wish to refuse identification when confronted, you do so at your own peril.

You solicited a legal opinion, presumably from someone who is familiar with the rationale applied by Ohio courts. I gave you that. If you want idealism, there are plenty of others here who will gladly write you a treatise.

 

[davidmcbeth]

They don't know the law. They know the mythology that they pass along to each other. I routinely listen to a certain retired police officer flat-out misrepresent the law, making it say what he wants it to say.

+1 And I don't sit there and "teach" them. Because (a) they are not going to listen (b) I don't talk to cops anyway and (c) why lower my chances of a 42 USC 1983 case?

 

[eye95]

I believe there is a reasonably good likelihood that Ohio courts will operate from a presumption of unlawfulness for concealed carry. It is consistent with Ohio legal history, where concealed carry was generally unlawful and no licenses were available until 2004; it is consistent with the designated limitations on the Second Amendment set forth in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-638 (2008); and it is consistent with the fact that less than 5% of the general population of Ohio (I'm throwing in law enforcement and other government agents) is authorized to carry a concealed handgun. It is also worthy of note that you are required to carry your concealed handgun license if you are carrying a concealed handgun; that you may be arrested if you are found to be in possession of concealed handgun without the license in your possession; and even if you produce a valid license within ten days, you are still guilty of a minor misdemeanor for failing to carry it with you. R.C. 2923.126(A), 2923.12(F)(2)(a). "Issues surrounding articulable suspicion, let alone probable cause, have not yet been fleshed out in Ohio since the passage of recent laws concerning the carrying of firearms." State v. Young, 2011-Ohio-4875, at ¶42 (2nd Dist.) If you wish to carry in a manner which is authorized only by licensure or other exceptions, and if you wish to refuse identification when confronted, you do so at your own peril.

You solicited a legal opinion, presumably from someone who is familiar with the rationale applied by Ohio courts. I gave you that. If you want idealism, there are plenty of others here who will gladly write you a treatise.

Your use of quote tags in that post is a bit messed up, making it seem as though I said some things that I did not. Please fix it.