Do I have to show ID?

[Festus_Hagen]

The "right" to bear arms is not a privilege. It is a RIGHT. Any law "infringing" on that right does not turn it into a privilege, it is simply "mala prohibida". Just because unjust laws are written to decide what we can or cannot do does not make activities that are natural human rights a "privilege".

And driving your car is only considered a privilege because the government thinks they "own" the roads that WE pay for. The roads belong to US, the people, the taxpayers. The only reason we do not view driving as a "right" is because cars did not exist when the Constitution was written. The spirit of the 4th amendment actually covers this but no one has ever challenged it and made it an issue because it just is not important enough.... YET.

Watch the videos of checkpointusa on youtube and learn about your rights.

I'm not here to debate if we have a right to do anything.

I'm talking about an officer legally being able to ask you for your DL if you are in the drivers seat on the side of a rode, or for your CCW if he gets a peek of a gun under clothing.

I understand what you are saying, butI don't want to muddy the waters with the same thing that has been debated to no end every week .

 

[cshoff]

Not sure I agree with you Hoff!

Seeing someone printing is not articulable suspicion of a crime. He would have no reason to assume you in fact did NOT have a permit which is what he would have to do in order to assume criminal activity. Just because it is a licensed activity does NOT make one automatically lose their 4a rights. The simple sight of a firearm in no way suggest criminal activity and authorizes him to engage a citizen officially. He is free to make CASUAL contact only and in casual he can try and develop RAS but he has to have RAS before he can demand anything.

Driving your car is also a licensed activity, but you MUST do something illegal before they are allowed to detain you and demand identification. They are not allowed just because it is a licensed activity to stop any or everyone participating in that activity just to check.

Missouri does not have a law against “printing” therefore the officer has no violation to suspect reasonably.

But you see, that is where the difference between "concealed" and "open" carry comes into play. Openly carrying a firearm is NOT, in and of itself, a crime, therefore, an openly carried firearm does not constitute RAS. Carrying a concealed firearm, on the other hand, IS a crime in and of itself. I think it would be hard to argue to a court that a police officer who noticed a person carrying a concealed firearm, whether it was because of printing or because it became exposed momentarily, did not have RAS to make contact with and request the CCW endorsement from that person. Of course, the exemption to that unlawful use of a weapon statute hinges on you having a valid CCW endorsement. Once the endorsement is verified, the detainment should end right then and there.

 

[LMTD]

Kind of sums up what a LEO can "request" if he sees you printing. Part of getting CCW in Big MO. It is what it is. Baby steps to Constitutional carry.

Well not really.

1 It says "request" not demand, there is a difference, a huge one in the courts eyes.

2 it is not criminal to refuse

That officer can not come up to you and say "hey buddy, got any id?" and get any kind of response required under law. That officer would have to clearly request your concealed weapons permit. Answering no to his request for ID would not be a violation of any sort.

Not open for any arguments about the CCW being a form of ID, we all know that, my point is simply a request for ID and a request for a ccw permit are completely different. Since they are different the request would have to be different and exclusive for the ccw permit.

 

[cshoff]

Well not really.

1 It says "request" not demand, there is a difference, a huge one in the courts eyes.

2 it is not criminal to refuse

That officer can not come up to you and say "hey buddy, got any id?" and get any kind of response required under law. That officer would have to clearly request your concealed weapons permit. Answering no to his request for ID would not be a violation of any sort.

Not open for any arguments about the CCW being a form of ID, we all know that, my point is simply a request for ID and a request for a ccw permit are completely different. Since they are different the request would have to be different and exclusive for the ccw permit.

I would agree with that. Inquiring as to your CCW endorsement status is not carte blanche to demand your DL or make any other invasive inquiry such as running numbers on your gun, etc.

 

[LMTD]

No. I wouldn't.

I would EXPECT to have to show a valid DL if I'm in a car on the side of the road, I don't care who you are.

Please keep your expectations as personal ideals and compliance remaining voluntary.

Because of persons such as yourself whom consider it no big deal, the police have repeatedly put up road blocks to stop every driver, sometimes drug searches, others drivers license and insurance proof, both of which because of people like me have been rules as clearly unconstitutional and a major infractions on peoples rights. How they continue to allow the DWI check points remains a HUGE mystery.

I do not think any self respecting police officer should demand the papers of a citizen unless he has a sound reason to believe they are engaging in criminal behavior EVER.

Since you have expressed a great deal of distaste for the Nazi comments, perhaps you might not want to be such a vocal supporter of the totalitarian methods they used such as demanding ID.

Why did the officers need it? How about some simple decent folks thought.... "Hey buddy everything alright?"" yeah, pulled over to make an important phone call." "OK, you might want to hit a side street or parking lot next time, folks drive nuts out here, have a good one"

No matter how hard you try and develop an answer, there is NO REASON WHAT SO EVER for an officer to demand the papers of a citizen sitting in a legally parked car and frankly the thought that everyone should expect it it EXACTLY what the tactic of the Nazi's was to gain full control.

I made up a saying at work regarding some inconsistent enforcement of regulations etc. Oddly it really fits this discussion.

"What you accept you condone"

 

[LMTD]

But you see, that is where the difference between "concealed" and "open" carry comes into play. Openly carrying a firearm is NOT, in and of itself, a crime, therefore, an openly carried firearm does not constitute RAS. Carrying a concealed firearm, on the other hand, IS a crime in and of itself. I think it would be hard to argue to a court that a police officer who noticed a person carrying a concealed firearm, whether it was because of printing or because it became exposed momentarily, did not have RAS to make contact with and request the CCW endorsement from that person. Of course, the exemption to that unlawful use of a weapon statute hinges on you having a valid CCW endorsement. Once the endorsement is verified, the detainment should end right then and there.

I do understand the difference, however the original conversation discussed "printing" and it is indeed my own understanding that in some states "printing" is indeed a legal problem, in Missouri it is not.

There is a lot of difference in a bulge and actually seeing the gun in the RAS discussion. In the days of on person insulin pumps, a huge variety of cell phones and a vast variety of other at the waist line carried items, it would not be outside the box for an officer to have a great deal of difficulty articulating why he assumed it was indeed a firearm.

That as a given, refusal to hand over the ccw card or acknowledging anything to the officer is not criminal and if the officer continues further he is on some shaky ground as to whether the evidence he compiles will stand in court and he is in a world of hurt if it is something like a colostomy bag etc. Even if he is right and it is a gun, a good defense lawyer is going to beat him to death on the stand on exactly what it was that lead him to 100% fact that something he could not see was without any doubt a firearm.

I have indeed thought about this a significant amount as I wear my "there is a firearm under this shirt" a LOT and have considered the implications it brings as it is indeed possible that a court would agree that it was the same thing as saying it directly to an officer whom saw it. An interesting 1a issue for sure as I consider the shirt political speech.

IMHO the language of the CCW law is to define that it is required to carry the endorsement card at all times while CCW and to surrender it upon request for verification with regard to other stops where the "do you have any weapons on you" question pops up and was not intended to be a stop and identify of CCW license holders, but might agree in certain circumstances it could be abused in such a manner. I would also add the non-criminal element to it is so that simply forgetting your wallet does not leave you with a criminal record because you do not have a plastic card on your person as long as the endorsement is indeed good.

 

[cshoff]

I do understand the difference, however the original conversation discussed "printing" and it is indeed my own understanding that in some states "printing" is indeed a legal problem, in Missouri it is not.

There is a lot of difference in a bulge and actually seeing the gun in the RAS discussion. In the days of on person insulin pumps, a huge variety of cell phones and a vast variety of other at the waist line carried items, it would not be outside the box for an officer to have a great deal of difficulty articulating why he assumed it was indeed a firearm.

That as a given, refusal to hand over the ccw card or acknowledging anything to the officer is not criminal and if the officer continues further he is on some shaky ground as to whether the evidence he compiles will stand in court and he is in a world of hurt if it is something like a colostomy bag etc. Even if he is right and it is a gun, a good defense lawyer is going to beat him to death on the stand on exactly what it was that lead him to 100% fact that something he could not see was without any doubt a firearm.

I have indeed thought about this a significant amount as I wear my "there is a firearm under this shirt" a LOT and have considered the implications it brings as it is indeed possible that a court would agree that it was the same thing as saying it directly to an officer whom saw it. An interesting 1a issue for sure as I consider the shirt political speech.

IMHO the language of the CCW law is to define that it is required to carry the endorsement card at all times while CCW and to surrender it upon request for verification with regard to other stops where the "do you have any weapons on you" question pops up and was not intended to be a stop and identify of CCW license holders, but might agree in certain circumstances it could be abused in such a manner. I would also add the non-criminal element to it is so that simply forgetting your wallet does not leave you with a criminal record because you do not have a plastic card on your person as long as the endorsement is indeed good.

There is no requirement that the officer be "100%" sure that the "bulge" he sees is a gun. Only that he has a "reasonable suspicion" that it is and that you are carrying it unlawfully.

 

[LMTD]

There is no requirement that the officer be "100%" sure that the "bulge" he sees is a gun. Only that he has a "reasonable suspicion" that it is and that you are carrying it unlawfully.

I beg to differ. Since the law one would indeed involve a firearm in order for him to reasonably articulate suspicion of a violation, I believe the standard involving the firearm itself would indeed be wide open and a lot more than a bulge would be required as a reasonable standard for the firearm itself. If your coat blew open and he saw a firearm, sure, but a bulge when a vast majority of bulges in folks clothing are indeed NOT firearms, I would suggest that the standard could be pushed very high by good defense council.

I will have to look up some case law on it, but officially approaching and detaining a citizen for a bulge that MIGHT be a gun, that MIGHT make it a crime IMHO does not make RAS compared to a GUN that MIGHT make a crime if not licensed.

Notable factoid, I have not heard of a single complaint of such activities anywhere and do not think such things are a problem.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

Please keep your expectations as personal ideals and compliance remaining voluntary.

I will, and have no problems doing so if asked.

 

[cshoff]

I beg to differ. Since the law one would indeed involve a firearm in order for him to reasonably articulate suspicion of a violation, I believe the standard involving the firearm itself would indeed be wide open and a lot more than a bulge would be required as a reasonable standard for the firearm itself. If your coat blew open and he saw a firearm, sure, but a bulge when a vast majority of bulges in folks clothing are indeed NOT firearms, I would suggest that the standard could be pushed very high by good defense council.

I will have to look up some case law on it, but officially approaching and detaining a citizen for a bulge that MIGHT be a gun, that MIGHT make it a crime IMHO does not make RAS compared to a GUN that MIGHT make a crime if not licensed.

There are a number of different scenarios that could play out and cause the officer to have a valid reasonable suspicion that a person was concealing a firearm, all of which would meet the requirements of RAS:

- A credible witness could make such a report and an officer could act on it.

- An officer could observe a person make a threat, or even bragging, while "touching" a bulge under his/her clothing in a suggestive manner.

- A shirt could be pulled tight enough that the outline of a gun underneath it could be visible to the officer.

- The bottom of a holster could be sticking out from underneath a shirt or jacket, causing the officer to have a reasonable belief that a concealed firearm was present.

I'm sure folks here can think of others as well. In any of these instances, the conditions present could help established RAS without a 100% certainty that the person in question was truly concealing a firearm. Reasonable suspicion does not require the suspicion to be correct, only that the suspicion be reasonable. In other words, it can't be unfounded or based on a hunch.

We have to remember that the totality of the circumstances are generally used to form a suspicion that can be acted upon, ie: a persons behavior, the presence of any physical "evidence", the environment in which this person is in, who the person is with, etc. If, when combined, these circumstances lead the officer to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place, or is about to take place, the legal requirements for RAS are met.

Notable factoid, I have not heard of a single complaint of such activities anywhere and do not think such things are a problem.

I agree. Nearly every situation I know of that involved an officer asking to see a CCW endorsement in Missouri involved a person who voluntarily disclosed that he/she was carrying a firearm. It just hasn't been an issue.

 

[JamesCanby]

What state does not have a CCW permit without a name and photo where a permit is required to CCW?

Virginia's Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) does not have a photo.

 

[LMTD]

It is obvious to me that you wish to generate a point out of something I did not state.

As far as I can tell, requesting/demanding my endorsement as cited in the statute IS a request/demand for ID in MO. Our CCW endorsement is not a permission slip simply stating "it is OK for OC For Me to CCW" on it.

No sir, not at all and for future reference, I tend to be antagonistic as he77 when I attempt to do something as referenced in your first statement, my comments were to foster nothing but sound educational respectful debate, nothing more and nothing less.

In the second statement is why I clarified the "request" vs demand which by your usage is implied as the same, it is not in the eyes of the court.

A request signifies voluntary compliance without criminal penalties, a demand signifies a lawful order and if not complied with can indeed draw an obstruction of justice charge. It is usually somewhat clear as it is how officers are trained, they will ask a question type sentence when compliance is a simple request and they will typically make it a very clear statement for demands aka lawful orders.

Whee it gets real fuzzy real fast is when a citizen does not comply with a request, many officers shift gears without thinking and into a demand without legal means to do so and get themselves into hot water so to speak. They are even known to testify that the non-compliance with a request gave them RAS, the courts have disagreed consistently.

The problem related to Lancers situation is one of perception. Many consider him to be doing things outside the box and antagonizing folks etc. While I can see a lot of folks point, every time I lean that direction myself I ask a simple question, "why is he such a cop magnet?" Immediately following that comes, "Always question authority" and I find it remarkable consistent in how he seems to never be charged which lends itself a lot closer to a victim of harassment than it does antagonistic. Couple that with comments from officers made public on the internet, he gets the benefit of the doubt in a huge way each time in contrast to the masses whom tend to give that to the officers involved instead.

 

[LMTD]

There are a number of different scenarios that could play out and cause the officer to have a valid reasonable suspicion that a person was concealing a firearm, all of which would meet the requirements of RAS:

I agree. Nearly every situation I know of that involved an officer asking to see a CCW endorsement in Missouri involved a person who voluntarily disclosed that he/she was carrying a firearm. It just hasn't been an issue.

I have found support for a bulge, however it indeed had another criminal element to it prior to aka suspicion of stealing and a bulge noticed, an officer can indeed Terry outer frisk the bulge area which would lend itself to the officer RAS I felt a gun.

I have not found yet where the bulge itself becomes RAS to initiate the stop.

Am I hanging by a thread, perhaps, but one thing about RAS is it does indeed have to be "specific" and I am not sure the bulge meets that criteria aka 100% comment on it being a firearm.

It does however take more than the bulge.

Kevin Singleton, Appellant, v. United States, Appellee.

Kevin Singleton, Appellant, v. United States, Appellee.

No. 08-CF-283

Argued April 6, 2010 -- June 17, 2010

Snipped from that:
We approach this conclusion cautiously.   Officer Abate did not specifically describe the shape or size of the bulge;  rather, he testified that it was “consistent” with a firearm.   If that were all the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, we would find it difficult to conclude there was reasonable articulable suspicion to stop appellant.   Compare People v. Montoya, 828 P.2d 251, 254 (Colo.1992) (en banc) (holding that bulge in pants pocket “that resembled a .25 caliber automatic pistol” was insufficient to justify frisk), and Ransome v. State, 816 A.2d 901, 906 (Md.2003) (noticeable bulge in man's pocket-without more-is insufficient to justify reasonable suspicion person is armed), with United States v. Black, 525 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir.2008) (holding that officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop person who was holding on to an object “6 to 8 inches long,” “1 to 11/212 inches high,” with a “flat side”).   That is because a generic bulge in a pocket can be explained by too many innocent causes to constitute “reasonable” suspicion.   Moreover, even though a particular officer might believe a bulge conceals a weapon, a purely subjective impression is not an “objective justification” that can be judicially examined against the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.   To accept such a subjective impression without further elaboration would be tantamount to judicial acquiescence in an officer's legal determination that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment have been satisfied.

The whole thing which does indeed result in a loss for the citizen because of the totality can be found:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1527482.html

 

[kylemoul]

i was at an amusement park and they had a beer garden. maybe 150 people or so in there, and plenty of local city LEO from florrisant. i had a tighter shirt on and i was printing.
my firearm is concealed.
i passed multiple leo's more than 5 times while getting beer at the keg.
one kind of eyed me up but maybe he thought i was good looking.

one person attending walked by me and said "hey buddy your printing"
said i am within my rights and said thank you.

either way i had my permit in my wallet like always, and if he asked i would of gave it to him due to the fact im drinking and want to be with friends not the damn leo.

and maybe that bulge in my pants is my man part? maybe its a pair of gloves? its 90 degrees out maybe its a water pistol. maybe its a carpenters square.