Identification required

[Firedawg314]

The logic is simple. You are not required to carry ID, you may not be arrested for not carrying ID. If a police officer comes up to you and ask for your ID just because you have a firearm, he is asking you for consent to seize your ID. If you say yes, you have given consent. Not unlike what SCOTUS just ruled about the 5th, your right to remain silent, YOU have the full responsibility to assert it and he has no duty what so ever to inform you of as much.

Officers are highly trained in obtaining consent and do so on a regular basis.

If you are as you say innocent and it is harmless, then you need to ask yourself why you are allowing this perfect stranger into your life at all. A **** pot of cops are thrown in jail every year, though the vast majority are basicly really decent folks.

If he has any reason what so ever to suspect you, then you are being detained and he can indeed demand it. You missing the logic is not understanding that the rules change across the contact and can change instantly. There is no reason to engage them at all because it can ONLY go to the next level, that is his ONLY goal. Casual/detain/custody and at no time what so ever is the officer required to tell the truth or inform you of your rights. If you are in stage one, his threat of dragging you down to the station and identify you is false and a threat against your libery violating your rights.

The logic, NEVER GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS.

Good point, what you speak of, is very deep. We have been "lied" to for years. Remember as kids... "The police are your friends" "If in trouble, fine a cop, and they will help you..." Then you get older, you find out that cops are afraid of teenagers and will quickly assume all are out to no good. Then as adults, most believe that you have a past to hide and you will do anything to keep it that way.

To be honest... thinking about what you just said.... If I am carrying a firearm, assuming CC or even OC, but lest assume CC and he/she notice you have one. So, what some will do, ask you for your ID. 9 times out of 10, I would have shown it and the cop would seen my CCW number and I could only assume they will end the ill thoughts about me.

Knowing one's rights and knowing how to use one's rights, I see are two different things. I think we all need to take a monthly class on using our rights with a local lawyer.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP If you are as you say innocent and it is harmless, then you need to ask yourself why you are allowing this perfect stranger into your life at all.

This is a good question for Ecocks. If you are innocent and doing nothing wrong, why let a perfect stranger into your life? Unless compelled by a stop-and-identify statute or court opinion that makes refusal obstruction, of course.

Especially if you are doing nothing wrong, why expose yourself to additional legal risk? How do you know he's a good cop? You may not find out he's a bad cop until its too late. How do you know he's not lying about a complaint and just wants to harass you a little, or intimidate you? We've definitely seen those situations before.

Rights are rights are rights are rights. No justification needed for their exercise. It took 725 years from Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights to wrest rights away from government. Lots of dead, tortured, dispossessed, imprisoned, and cripplingly fined people along the way. Over a million Americans have died defending our rights. Just based on what it cost in blood and treasure to win and maintain them, rights are incredibly valuable.

 

[SavageOne]

<snip> Going through You-Tube and looking at most (but certainly not all) of the videos on police encounters while OC'ing, it's overwhelmingly clear that the police are being baited, often by people that I wouldn't let eat in my restaurant much less invite into my home.<snip>

Not sure I agree with how many are baiting, but let's, for the sake of augment, say they are all baiting, so what. If they were baiting, how's that different than the bait cars police use? The principle would be the same, you can't make someone violate the law(or you rights) they have to choose to do so. If they chose to do so they must accept the consequences of what they do. Since they follow the same principle, if one is reprehensible they both must be.

Sorry to veer OT, just wanted to address this.

 

[ecocks]

The logic is simple. You are not required to carry ID, you may not be arrested for not carrying ID. If a police officer comes up to you and ask for your ID just because you have a firearm, he is asking you for consent to seize your ID. If you say yes, you have given consent. Not unlike what SCOTUS just ruled about the 5th, your right to remain silent, YOU have the full responsibility to assert it and he has no duty what so ever to inform you of as much.

Officers are highly trained in obtaining consent and do so on a regular basis.

If you are as you say innocent and it is harmless, then you need to ask yourself why you are allowing this perfect stranger into your life at all. A **** pot of cops are thrown in jail every year, though the vast majority are basicly really decent folks.

If he has any reason what so ever to suspect you, then you are being detained and he can indeed demand it. You missing the logic is not understanding that the rules change across the contact and can change instantly. There is no reason to engage them at all because it can ONLY go to the next level, that is his ONLY goal. Casual/detain/custody and at no time what so ever is the officer required to tell the truth or inform you of your rights. If you are in stage one, his threat of dragging you down to the station and identify you is false and a threat against your libery violating your rights.

The logic, NEVER GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS.

Please provide the citation that says an officer has the legal right to "seize my ID". I have never heard of anyone having their ID "seized" except in the instance of those places where traffic violations are done that way. I'm also very confused in that so many references to the firearms keep coming up when I can only recall once that a police officer asked me for my ID while I was OC'ing. And yes, I offered it up willingly and with a smile. He was an okay guy.

I'm curious where this comes from though and would love to see the case law concerning that seizure of an ID.

Also, there is every reason in the world to engage them just as I would the person sitting next to me at Village Inn on a good day. Guess everyone is different though.

 

[LMTD]

Firedawg let me get a few things out here.

I have argued both sides of this discussion, right here on this board you can find post from me stating if you refuse to provide ID you are an idiot, moron or some other term in bad taste. I was right and I was wrong.

The problem in MO with ID is it changes depending upon what level you are at with the officer. Level one, casual, there is no requirement what so ever for you to provide ID. Level 2 detention is slightly different, you have to ID yourself meaning your real and true name, well I should say, he may demand it, search for it, use non-disclosure as additional RAS etc.

Now where the problem is, you do not KNOW when you are being detained and the officer is under no obligation to tell you unless you ask.If approached by an officer I would recommend this:

Leo: How are you doing today, have any ID?
Me: excuse me sir? I have broken no laws, am I being detained? Am I free to go?

Now the officer has only two answers and he can't lie about this particular question so moving forward...

Leo: No you are not free to go, let me see your id.
Me: (if true) I do not have any ID, my name is Rich, I live in Ofallon mo, I am going to the store, I am not consenting to any searches or seizures and I will not be answering any of your questions with out talking to a lawyer.
Leo: woah there guy, I just asked for your ID, do you have something to hide?
Me: I want to speak to my lawyer.
Leo: I am going to search you for weapons
Me: not a word
Leo: Well Mr. Rich your record indicates xyz so your clean, if you will just tell me what you are doing here we can let this all go.
Me: Am I free to go?
Leo: Why are you trying to be so hard to get along with sir, we are just doing our jobs.
Me: I want to speak to my lawyer, am I free to go.

Now if I had my id it would be the same but I would indeed have handed them the card. When they asked if this was still my correct address I would have asked if I was free to go.

Now if you are participating in a LICENSED activity like driving or concealing a weapon, you need to have the card with you, this would also apply to OC in areas that only allow OC with a CCW permit.

On that note, it may indeed make the interaction with the LEO longer, it may make it shorter, depends upon the totality of the situation. Having nothing to hide has nothing to do with your freedom. Telling them when they ask you where you are coming from "work" and then they ask "where do you work" answering SEEMS harmless. Lets say I did that knowing I am innocent and I tell them, how do I know there is not a BOLO out on a white male 30-50 driving an SUV that raped a woman in the parking lot of the business next door to my work? It was totally innocent information and now I am heading to jail to possibly face rape charges and I am going to have to spend a boat load of money on a lawyer to retain my freedom and there are likely to always be some who doubt my innocence, not to bother mentioning that the press may get a hold of it and broadcast my name all over the place as the person arrested for the rape bla bla bla. All that because I put myself near a place something happened I knew nothing about.

No sir, not me, they will get the information required by law, nothing more and nothing less and the government can stay the hell out of my life and yes, LEO's are indeed the government.

As a firefighter, ask yourself this, does the government do a good job of running the fire protection of this country or does it not suffer with power hungry persons whom make it very hard for good honest firefighters to conduct themselves in a positive manner? I myself have yet to see a governmental run entity that had no corruption and treated all in a fair and respectful manner.

As far as cops/leo's go, guy, there are some GREAT folks doing the job, there are some guys who are really in it for the right reason and they respect all citizens, and there are some real turds and they make it bad for all of us. As a general rule, yes, I believe a police officer is a go to person if you are in trouble, but I am not so stupid as to believe they are on my side, they after all work for the prosecutor. Protect and serve is marketing, respond and report is reality and I do not need one of them reporting that I was next door to a crime scene whether in good faith doing the job or as a turd trying to harass me, I just want them to leave me alone in any official capacity and allow me to live as a free man.

Cliff notes version : polite refusal first, extremely guarded compliance second and only my lawyer speaks for me once I am FORCED to comply.

Check out "flex your rights" in google and spend an hour watching their you tube videos.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

You can leave a car unlocked and the honest man will pass right by it. Heck, you can even leave it running, forget to close the door and go inside to go to sleep, and the honest man will ring your doorbell in the middle of the night and tell you that you left your car running. (Don't ask how I know people will remind you.)

I'm sure it's long been held that you can't bait an honest man. The ONLY thing that an officer has to do when "baited" is obey the law. He doesn't have to ignore anything that's illegal, immoral, illicit, or even overly fattening.

 

[LMTD]

I'm curious where this comes from though and would love to see the case law concerning that seizure of an ID.

Uhm, I suppose you simply do not understand, when it leaves your hand and enters his, your ID has been "seized" by the government. You are NOT free to snatch it back, you will only get it back if the officer as a government agent decides you may indeed have it back and sir, that applies to ANY property that is indeed yours that your freedom to do with as you see fit for even one second.

In case you are unaware, YOU are seized when you are detained and are no longer free to go.

I am assuming you are making a common mistake and thinking it means like when they take a dope dealers car and keep it etc. Same word, same meaning, not the same permanency is all.

 

[LMTD]

Please provide the citation that says an officer has the legal right to "seize my ID". .

Did we not start this dialog regarding your feeling that citations were kind of stupid?

lol I know, snarky, but I am wondering how much is real discussion and how much is trolling for a fuss. I get into too much trouble around here and other sites to bother with a fuss.

 

[LMTD]

Please provide the citation that says an officer has the legal right to "seize my ID".

Oh and I am indeed happy to oblige.

State v. Taber , 73 S.W.3d 699 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002). An officer pulled over the
defendant for not having a front license plate, but quickly determined that he had been
mistaken. Instead of letting her go immediately, he explained his mistake, but still asked
to see her driver’s license. He never told her she was free to leave. She didn’t have
her license with her, but did have an identification card which he seized and took back to
his patrol car and used to run a license check, thereby learning of an outstanding warrant
for her arrest.

 

[Firedawg314]

Firedawg let me get a few things out here.

I have argued both sides of this discussion, right here on this board you can find post from me stating if you refuse to provide ID you are an idiot, moron or some other term in bad taste. I was right and I was wrong.

The problem in MO with ID is it changes depending upon what level you are at with the officer. Level one, casual, there is no requirement what so ever for you to provide ID. Level 2 detention is slightly different, you have to ID yourself meaning your real and true name, well I should say, he may demand it, search for it, use non-disclosure as additional RAS etc.

Now where the problem is, you do not KNOW when you are being detained and the officer is under no obligation to tell you unless you ask.If approached by an officer I would recommend this:

Leo: How are you doing today, have any ID?
Me: excuse me sir? I have broken no laws, am I being detained? Am I free to go?

Now the officer has only two answers and he can't lie about this particular question so moving forward...

Leo: No you are not free to go, let me see your id.
Me: (if true) I do not have any ID, my name is Rich, I live in Ofallon mo, I am going to the store, I am not consenting to any searches or seizures and I will not be answering any of your questions with out talking to a lawyer.
Leo: woah there guy, I just asked for your ID, do you have something to hide?
Me: I want to speak to my lawyer.
Leo: I am going to search you for weapons
Me: not a word
Leo: Well Mr. Rich your record indicates xyz so your clean, if you will just tell me what you are doing here we can let this all go.
Me: Am I free to go?
Leo: Why are you trying to be so hard to get along with sir, we are just doing our jobs.
Me: I want to speak to my lawyer, am I free to go.

Now if I had my id it would be the same but I would indeed have handed them the card. When they asked if this was still my correct address I would have asked if I was free to go.

Now if you are participating in a LICENSED activity like driving or concealing a weapon, you need to have the card with you, this would also apply to OC in areas that only allow OC with a CCW permit.

On that note, it may indeed make the interaction with the LEO longer, it may make it shorter, depends upon the totality of the situation. Having nothing to hide has nothing to do with your freedom. Telling them when they ask you where you are coming from "work" and then they ask "where do you work" answering SEEMS harmless. Lets say I did that knowing I am innocent and I tell them, how do I know there is not a BOLO out on a white male 30-50 driving an SUV that raped a woman in the parking lot of the business next door to my work? It was totally innocent information and now I am heading to jail to possibly face rape charges and I am going to have to spend a boat load of money on a lawyer to retain my freedom and there are likely to always be some who doubt my innocence, not to bother mentioning that the press may get a hold of it and broadcast my name all over the place as the person arrested for the rape bla bla bla. All that because I put myself near a place something happened I knew nothing about.

No sir, not me, they will get the information required by law, nothing more and nothing less and the government can stay the hell out of my life and yes, LEO's are indeed the government.

As a firefighter, ask yourself this, does the government do a good job of running the fire protection of this country or does it not suffer with power hungry persons whom make it very hard for good honest firefighters to conduct themselves in a positive manner? I myself have yet to see a governmental run entity that had no corruption and treated all in a fair and respectful manner.

As far as cops/leo's go, guy, there are some GREAT folks doing the job, there are some guys who are really in it for the right reason and they respect all citizens, and there are some real turds and they make it bad for all of us. As a general rule, yes, I believe a police officer is a go to person if you are in trouble, but I am not so stupid as to believe they are on my side, they after all work for the prosecutor. Protect and serve is marketing, respond and report is reality and I do not need one of them reporting that I was next door to a crime scene whether in good faith doing the job or as a turd trying to harass me, I just want them to leave me alone in any official capacity and allow me to live as a free man.

Cliff notes version : polite refusal first, extremely guarded compliance second and only my lawyer speaks for me once I am FORCED to comply.

Check out "flex your rights" in google and spend an hour watching their you tube videos.

... I thought I had stated I understand. That was a great example you given too. I guess when it all boils down to it, its about applying what was taught.

 

[LMTD]

... I thought I had stated I understand. That was a great example you given too. I guess when it all boils down to it, its about applying what was taught.

You did, I was just expanding and rambling like I can do sometimes. I did want to point out though, that I had been indifferent to it before as well. Never thought it important and figured folks refusing were trying to be pains in the butt or had something to hide.

My only main point in the hypothetical, good cop or bad cop, speaking with them in an official capacity has some serious perils and no upside to be had.

 

[Firedawg314]

You can leave a car unlocked and the honest man will pass right by it. Heck, you can even leave it running, forget to close the door and go inside to go to sleep, and the honest man will ring your doorbell in the middle of the night and tell you that you left your car running. (Don't ask how I know people will remind you.)

I'm sure it's long been held that you can't bait an honest man. The ONLY thing that an officer has to do when "baited" is obey the law. He doesn't have to ignore anything that's illegal, immoral, illicit, or even overly fattening.

Well, that all depends. Even "hoenst" people have weakness. This is a little bit off subject but a good example...

You have an "honest" man, "stright laced", only trouble, having a speeding ticket 10 years ago...always pay taxes etc. He's married for 5 years, he's 26 years old. For the past 4 years his wife won't have sex with him. Nothing he did, she just make up "medical excuess". One day he meets an old college female friend and she's hot. SPeed things up, she wants to have sex with him, she makes up an excuess about her frig, etc.
Now, do you blame him for going over there and she take advantage of him and he gives in?
Or do you blame his wife for purposly advoiding him sexually which cause him to be come more "weak" for another?

Point is, a car, drugs, stealing etc does not tempt me.
For some honest people are "clepto's". Yes,they are honest and will tell you (most of the time), its their weakness and they know it. So, a clepto isn't a criminal, but that thing they can't help makes them a "criminal".

Just like a sex addict... if they are not "getting" any... they will reach out to videos, internet, dates, cutty buddies and hookers. In general, cops know hot to bait, just depends on what bait they are using.

How many people would be "honest" if they walk to an ATM and they notice the back of it open and a stack of money is RIGHT THERE, in the open. No signs of being broken into, just wide open. WHo wouldn't think... "well, Ihaven't used my card... and I don't bank here... well, they have insurance for this type of stuff...ok, I take what I can..." Who wouldn't take the money?

But yeah, i be worried it was a sting or something...right now I can say... I wouldn't do it, I call it in. But if its right there in front of me, it could be a different story.

 

[Firedawg314]

Oh and I am indeed happy to oblige.

State v. Taber , 73 S.W.3d 699 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002). An officer pulled over the
defendant for not having a front license plate, but quickly determined that he had been
mistaken. Instead of letting her go immediately, he explained his mistake, but still asked
to see her driver’s license. He never told her she was free to leave. She didn’t have
her license with her, but did have an identification card which he seized and took back to
his patrol car and used to run a license check, thereby learning of an outstanding warrant
for her arrest.

Not to be a "know it all", but wanting to see the "citation"...that's weak... Watch cops... or better yet, go up to a cop and tell them you won't show your ID... go to a city cop and tell them that... But you are good, I hope this answer help "ecocks"out.

 

[wrightme]

Not to be a "know it all", but wanting to see the "citation"...that's weak... Watch cops...

What, the show!?

or better yet, go up to a cop and tell them you won't show your ID... go to a city cop and tell them that...

No, if they come to YOU, do not present your ID. ONLY present that information required by law. As has already been presented, only licensed activities are likely to require the presentation of an ID. If you are not performing a state-licensed activity that requires showing an ID, and you still relinquish it freely upon 'request,' you have given the LE the power (legal or not) to detain you until they choose to return your ID card to you.

 

[ecocks]

This is a good question for Ecocks. If you are innocent and doing nothing wrong, why let a perfect stranger into your life? Unless compelled by a stop-and-identify statute or court opinion that makes refusal obstruction, of course.

Especially if you are doing nothing wrong, why expose yourself to additional legal risk? How do you know he's a good cop? You may not find out he's a bad cop until its too late. How do you know he's not lying about a complaint and just wants to harass you a little, or intimidate you? We've definitely seen those situations before.

Question? Every friend I have was a perfect stranger at one time or another. Were you born knowing all of yours? Few became friends as a result of a "stop-and-identify" statute.

I see your point but have to ask when you happen upon a pleasant-looking female do you not speak to her since she might be a disease-ridden *****?

Must have been tough dating........

 

[ecocks]

Did we not start this dialog regarding your feeling that citations were kind of stupid?

lol I know, snarky, but I am wondering how much is real discussion and how much is trolling for a fuss. I get into too much trouble around here and other sites to bother with a fuss.

Two completely different issues. One was a statement that the citations concerning ID requirements was going on and on without any bearing on real situations.

The second is the question where a police officer has "seized" my ID. I was (and remain) curious as to whether handing someone something to read constitutes them "seizing" it.

As for trolling, well, no problem, I'll be handing my ID to any officer who asks politely and questioning when an officer "demands" to see same. You will undoubtedly do as you wish as well.

That's fine. Have a good time in your encounters and I will endeavor to do so in mine.

If I ever end up in jail because I showed a LEO some sort of ID I'll certainly come back here and let you know.

 

[LMTD]

Two completely different issues. One was a statement that the citations concerning ID requirements was going on and on without any bearing on real situations.

The second is the question where a police officer has "seized" my ID. I was (and remain) curious as to whether handing someone something to read constitutes them "seizing" it.


If I ever end up in jail because I showed a LEO some sort of ID I'll certainly come back here and let you know.

Well, you got your answer and then responded as if it did not exist so I am unclear on how you remain "unclear" but then again your responses have not indicated a great deal of knowledge on how 4a works for and against you so I remain unsurprised.

You are by all means free to hand your ID over to them at every whim, it is a free country and they thrive on it. There is not a cop or a prosecutor that will ever say they dislike it when the public consents, it makes their jobs vastly easier.

On the other hand, you are going to find a lot more folks similar to myself that wish you would reconsider because it is exactly your compliant do anything they ask attitude that lends itself to them asking for more and more and makes the idiots in power think it is perfectly acceptable to circumvent the constitution if they just ask nicely and when someone says no, well by all means that is suspicious and now it can be forced.

No sir, you are not going to find the live and let live thing to fly with people like me. Oh sure, you are free to do as you see fit, but that will not prevent me from doing the same and using the freedom of expression to point out that you are indeed a good example of what not to do, no doubt about it.

FYI do not forget, you ain't in Idaho anymore and more than one person in your area that you live now has been illegally detained, if you opt for OC, you might want to get the crumbs out of your wallet because you may be showing that ID a lot more than you ever dreamed of, depending upon your travels.

To be safe, I believe goalsetter was harassed quite a bit in Bolivar and another was held at gun point related to an incident in Strafford.

Oh, and yes, you are indeed somewhat trolling for an argument, this one just borderline suits you.

 

[Motofixxer]

What, the show!?

No, if they come to YOU, do not present your ID. ONLY present that information required by law. As has already been presented, only licensed activities are likely to require the presentation of an ID. If you are not performing a state-licensed activity that requires showing an ID, and you still relinquish it freely upon 'request,' you have given the LE the power (legal or not) to detain you until they choose to return your ID card to you.

By handing over your ID, you are also consenting to unknown contracts. Supreme Courts say:

"All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

"There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]

This states things rather clearly
California Peace Officers Legal Sourcebook (Rev.1/2007) II. Detentions/Stops
A. Definition A temporary “detention” or “vehicle stop” is a “limited seizure” of the driver, that is, something less than a full arrest but more substantial than a simple “contact” or “consensual encounter” (Wilson (1983) 34 Cal. 3D 777.)
A detention exists (1) when you assert authority over a person in a way that a reasonable innocent person would feel compelled to submit to and (2) the person in fact submits. (Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S 621, 626, Cartwright (1999) 72 Cal. App.4th 1362, 1367, Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 180.)
Example: Activating your red light does not constitute a stop or detention until and unless the driver complies by pulling over and his behavior during that interval(such as attempting to flee) may properly be considered in determining whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. (Smith(9th Cir 2000) 217F 3d 746, 751.1

This is what my state Constitution says:
Equality; inherent rights. Section 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986] All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


Just some things that make you go hmm

 

[SavageOne]

While viewing a YouTube video of a stop of an OCer in MO, I hear one of the officers state that the OCer must provide his info to verify that he is old enough to be in possession of a handgun. The OCer correctly states that there is no MO Statue for age requirement for the possession of a firearm. The officer states that it is a Federal requirement. I have never heard of such a Federal requirement. When the OCer asks if anyone at the local station will be able to provide a statue, he is told to call the FBI.

Does anyone know if there is, in fact, a Federal age requirement for firearm possession? If there is could someone please provide a link to it? Here's a link to the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIpO...xt=C33c0068ADOEgsToPDskLMzFdiiW0-FJbBDZgCIkGF


Thanks for any info.

 

[wrightme]

While viewing a YouTube video of a stop of an OCer in MO, I hear one of the officers state that the OCer must provide his info to verify that he is old enough to be in possession of a handgun. The OCer correctly states that there is no MO Statue for age requirement for the possession of a firearm. The officer states that it is a Federal requirement. I have never heard of such a Federal requirement. When the OCer asks if anyone at the local station will be able to provide a statue, he is told to call the FBI.

Does anyone know if there is, in fact, a Federal age requirement for firearm possession? If there is could someone please provide a link to it? Here's a link to the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIpO...xt=C33c0068ADOEgsToPDskLMzFdiiW0-FJbBDZgCIkGF


Thanks for any info.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=43

A person under age 18 may not possess a handgun or handgun ammunition, and it is illegal for a person to provide a handgun or handgun ammunition to a person under age 18, except for target shooting, hunting, or certain other exempted purposes. (Youth Handgun Safety Act, 1994)