While this has been a very interesting thread to read (though I think it would have been better without the posts criticizing individuals which I don't think furthered the original topic), there is a matter I have not seen mentioned.
I note that some of the posters above were in Virginia, but this part of the forum is in the "general discussion" area that applies to all states, correct? I think that in any state, when one is driving a vehicle on a public road, one must have a driver's license & show it to law enforcement when properly requested to do so.
I have difficulty with the concept that some folks think they can carry a gun without any form of ID. There are federal and state laws (on the books for many decades) that create what I call "second class" citizens (2ccs). By that I mean people who cannot legally possess firearms, because they are under age, have felony convictions, etc.
In a "utopian" world, the "2ccs" would be in institutions or under supervision if outside. Unfortunately, our society allows second-class citizens to run around loose with no means to tell by just looking at them whether they fall into that category.
People who open carry are "broadcasting" the fact they have a handgun. For the moment, let's disregard whether a particular state requires that people in vehicles have concealed carry licenses or not--let's keep it simple with an OC'er walking down the street.
It is possible that someone might be concerned about seeing that and call the cops, or it is possible that a cop might be passing by & notice an OC'er with a gun (even without a report of a crime having been committed nearby with a description similar to that of the OC'er). It seems to me that a LEO has a legal right to ascertain that the person carrying the gun is legally qualified to do so. If the OC'er has no ID, I think the LEO is justified in detaining him pending a positive ID.
People who open carry in many cases have confrontations with LEOs who may not know the law in the particular state, etc. I would think that the goal of RESPONSIBLE OC'ers is to try to educate the public (including law enforcement) about the legalities of OC, and also avoid creating the impression that OC'ers are a bunch of nutcases.
I think that the majority of LEOs are trying to do a good job and they have enough problems without getting "in your face" attitudes from OC'ers with chips on their shoulders. In my opinion, stirring up trouble when it is not necessary will not advance the cause of OC.
Does the above make sense to any of you?
