Providing ID when open carrying

[DaveT319]

I've seen a lot of open carry videos where the cops arrive because of a report of a "person with a gun". Almost every single time, the OCer refuses to provide ID when the officer invariably asks. On the one hand, I understand the refusal, as you're only supposed to provide ID when there's suspicion of a crime occurring or having occurred. However, since there ARE laws prohibiting certain people from possessing firearms, is it not reasonable to provide ID to show that you are able to be carrying that firearm? Don't they have a justifiable reason for asking for/demanding that you identify yourself? And if not, can someone explain why not?

BTW, if I ever get stopped for OCing, I believe I would provide ID if asked. I have no problem with them knowing who I am, and I have no reason to prevent them from running a check on me. I personally feel that it will make things less contentious if you show a little cooperation. This does not mean that I will willingly surrender my weapon to an officer, but I have no problem with them checking to make sure I'm not prohibited from owning/carrying the weapon.

 

[Primus]

I've seen a lot of open carry videos where the cops arrive because of a report of a "person with a gun". Almost every single time, the OCer refuses to provide ID when the officer invariably asks. On the one hand, I understand the refusal, as you're only supposed to provide ID when there's suspicion of a crime occurring or having occurred. However, since there ARE laws prohibiting certain people from possessing firearms, is it not reasonable to provide ID to show that you are able to be carrying that firearm? Don't they have a justifiable reason for asking for/demanding that you identify yourself? And if not, can someone explain why not?

BTW, if I ever get stopped for OCing, I believe I would provide ID if asked. I have no problem with them knowing who I am, and I have no reason to prevent them from running a check on me. I personally feel that it will make things less contentious if you show a little cooperation. This does not mean that I will willingly surrender my weapon to an officer, but I have no problem with them checking to make sure I'm not prohibited from owning/carrying the weapon.

Wait for the boom....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Tackleberry1]

It's not just about 2A

Open Carry is not simply about the ability to carry a firearm for self defense. It's also about educating the public and LEO's as to what is legal and what is not.

Numerous court cases have held that LEO's have no right to ID you unless the can articulate reasonable suspicion. They have also held "DeBury v US" that a firearm, when legally carried, can not be the only cause for reasonable suspicion.

Whether your an advocate or not, Open Carry is about citizen "checking" the abuse of authority by Law Enforcement AND Normalizing the presence of weapons in the hands of peaceful people.

All that said... I must ask... Why would you exercise 1 right 2A... And not also exercise your 4A and 5A rights as well?

Tack

 

[JoeSparky]

I've seen a lot of open carry videos where the cops arrive because of a report of a "person with a gun". Almost every single time, the OCer refuses to provide ID when the officer invariably asks. On the one hand, I understand the refusal, as you're only supposed to provide ID when there's suspicion of a crime occurring or having occurred. However, since there ARE laws prohibiting certain people from possessing firearms, is it not reasonable to provide ID to show that you are able to be carrying that firearm? Don't they have a justifiable reason for asking for/demanding that you identify yourself? And if not, can someone explain why not?

BTW, if I ever get stopped for OCing, I believe I would provide ID if asked. I have no problem with them knowing who I am, and I have no reason to prevent them from running a check on me. I personally feel that it will make things less contentious if you show a little cooperation. This does not mean that I will willingly surrender my weapon to an officer, but I have no problem with them checking to make sure I'm not prohibited from owning/carrying the weapon.

As I see it...

We are NOT "supposed" to but rather required by law to provide ID when ....

The officer MUST have a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion OR higher level of unlawfullness such a Probable Cause to believe that one has just committed, is NOW commiting, or about to commit a crime to LAWFULLY demand one ID themselves. Just because one is engaged in an activity that may require a liscence or permit to lawfully participate in does not in any way provide the LEO this required RAS or PC that YOU don't have such a liscense or permit.

As for the laws prohibiting some members of society from firearms possession.... as to You being stopped and require to provide EVIDENCE that YOU are lawful stands our system of justice on its head. You know, that system where one is accused of a crime based upon RAS, then PC and THEN the State must prove to a certain standard that YOU are the one who did what you were accused of doing, on in the other instance that you have a legal duty to do and failed to do. It is impossible for an officer who does not know you and has no information about you other that a report from someone else or his own witnessing your engagement in a LAWFUL activity that you are a prohibited person!

Courts have ruled that you can't be pull over in your car JUST to check that you have a liscense. The LEO must have RAS or PC to believe that you have, are about to, or are presently engageing in some unlawful activitiy.

As for YOU chosing to allow an officer to behave in a manner that is EXTRA-legal is your choice but please consider the officers will get USED to person accepting this extra-legal requirement, then DEMAND all persons comply. Think of the old adage regarding giving someone an inch....

It is NOT a matter of consideration of the officer or politeness--- It is a matter of Constitutionallly protected Rights for which I strive.

I have a name for ANY officer that would require/demand ANY more than what the law actually requires in violation of these sacred Rights and Protections Secured for me by those Founding Fathers of this Nation as written in our US Constitution and the Constitutions of the various States---- It is the name NOT of LEO or Law Enforcement Officer but rathat that of OEO--- Opinion Enforcement Officer. For as long as that person is attempting to or actually enforcing OPINION they can not be a LAW Enforcement Officer.

 

[DaveT319]

All that said... I must ask... Why would you exercise 1 right 2A... And not also exercise your 4A and 5A rights as well?

Tack

4th-unreasonable search and seizure: I personally do not think it is unreasonable for them to ID me to make sure I am legally allowed to have the weapon. You mentioned "when legally carried", but how do they know if you are legally allowed to carry or even possess a firearm? Now, I did say I would not give them permission to confiscate my weapon for "safety", but I don't feel running a check is really a search.

5th-protection against self-incrimination: I don't see how giving an ID falls under this, especially when I know I have not done anything wrong. Maybe you can explain how it applies?

 

[DaveT319]

Just because one is engaged in an activity that may require a licence or permit to lawfully participate in does not in any way provide the LEO this required RAS or PC that YOU don't have such a license or permit.

So does that mean I can walk around with a concealed firearm without a license, and they have no right to stop me, or make sure I have a license, or arrest me?

 

[Citizen]

SNIP However, since there ARE laws prohibiting certain people from possessing firearms, is it not reasonable to provide ID to show that you are able to be carrying that firearm? Don't they have a justifiable reason for asking for/demanding that you identify yourself? And if not, can someone explain why not?

Huh!?!?!!

What is the basis for their suspicion that I am not legally permitted to possess?

Your premise results in the idea that citizens must prove they are not breaking the law, rather than government having reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they are breaking the law. It turns the 4th Amendment on its head.

In any event, your reference is Brown vs Texas. Short story, the US Supreme Court said that a cop must have reasonable suspicion the person is connected to a crime before he can compel identity.

Ask it this way. Since when is exercising a fundamental human right--in this case possessing the means for defense of self and others--grounds for suspicion? What's next, breathing? Eating? Living in a house?

 

[Tackleberry1]

4th-unreasonable search and seizure: I personally do not think it is unreasonable for them to ID me to make sure I am legally allowed to have the weapon. You mentioned "when legally carried", but how do they know if you are legally allowed to carry or even possess a firearm? Now, I did say I would not give them permission to confiscate my weapon for "safety", but I don't feel running a check is really a search.

5th-protection against self-incrimination: I don't see how giving an ID falls under this, especially when I know I have not done anything wrong. Maybe you can explain how it applies?

Allowing an Officer to run your ID when he has ZERO legal ground to demand it IS AN UNREASONABLE SEIZURE OF YOUR PROPERTY, an UNREASONABLE SEARCH OF YOUR PAPERS, and an Unconstitutional detention, delaying your ability to travel freely and unmolested by government agents. Choosing to submit is certainly your option.

Anything you say may be used against you. Any conversation with an LEO BEYOND "why am I being detained" is opening the door for you too say the wrong thing and "justify" further intrusion or provide evidence against yourself.

You have no way of knowing if Officer Friendly is the nephew of Charlton Heston... or Chuck Schummer looking to haul you in.

Do what your comfortable doing. I'm not saying your wrong... Just saying trusting a cop to have your best interests in mind is a bit too... Trusting for me.

tack

 

[DaveT319]

Huh!?!?!!

What is the basis for their suspicion that I am not legally permitted to possess?

Your premise results in the idea that citizens must prove they are not breaking the law, rather than government having reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they are breaking the law. It turns the 4th Amendment on its head.

In any event, your reference is Brown vs Texas. Short story, the US Supreme Court said that a cop must have reasonable suspicion the person is connected to a crime before he can compel identity.

Ask it this way. Since when is exercising a fundamental human right--in this case possessing the means for defense of self and others--grounds for suspicion? What's next, breathing? Eating? Living in a house?

I suppose that makes sense. I figured as a matter of public safety that they would have the right to, but that doesn't transpose to driving, so I guess they really don't unless they can articulate that you are breaking the law.

Besides, have you EVER seen or heard of a criminal open-carrying a firearm? They always try to hide it. Seems like that right there would make it seem reasonable that you are not breaking the law when open carrying, and that you're not prohibited from having the weapon.

 

[Tackleberry1]

I suppose that makes sense. I figured as a matter of public safety that they would have the right to, but that doesn't transpose to driving, so I guess they really don't unless they can articulate that you are breaking the law.

Besides, have you EVER seen or heard of a criminal open-carrying a firearm? They always try to hide it. Seems like that right there would make it seem reasonable that you are not breaking the law when open carrying, and that you're not prohibited from having the weapon.

Public Safety is a LIE... The Government can not, nor is it obligated to protect you... Or anyone else.

Sacrificing your rights for "safety" is abdicating your right of self defense all together.

The moment you say "sure officer, if it's for my safety"... Your really saying that your willing to rely on his protection.

 

[JoeSparky]

So does that mean I can walk around with a concealed firearm without a license, and they have no right to stop me, or make sure I have a license, or arrest me?

First, whether you do this or not makes zero difference to me. In MANY locations you can't do what you suggest LEGALLY. In certain locations you are fully legal to carry a concealed weapon WITHOUT ANY LICENSE OR PERMIT.

Second, IF the officer has NO RAS or PC that you are doing what you have suggested in a location where such license or permit is required they have NO LEGAL CAUSE TO DEMAND that you cease your travels, Search you to find that you did have a concealed weapon, or arrest you.

Once the officer does have RAS as a minimum to initiate an investigation or PC that you are, have, or are about to violate the law he has EVERY legal right to stop you and demand and ID AND once he has PC that you have, are currently, or about to violate a specific statute or several statutes, ARREST you.

Additionally to your query--- Since it is a legal requirement that one have an operator's license to LAWFULLY operate a motor vehicle on the roads, Is it lawful or OK for an officer to stop vehicles randomly with no RAS or PC of ANY illegal actions simply to verify that the vehicle operator does have a driver's license?

Now, IF you were to suggest or encourage anyone to carry a concealed weapon in violation of the law would be a rules violation of this forum. I answered your query on this as a hypothetical ONLY. Forum requirments are to advocate for LAWFUL ACTIONS ONLY.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

So does that mean I can walk around with a concealed firearm without a license, and they have no right to stop me, or make sure I have a license, or arrest me?

Would you answer your own question so we can see what you've learned?

 

[DaveT319]

First, whether you do this or not makes zero difference to me. In MANY locations you can't do what you suggest LEGALLY. In certain locations you are fully legal to carry a concealed weapon WITHOUT ANY LICENSE OR PERMIT.

Second, IF the officer has NO RAS or PC that you are doing what you have suggested in a location where such license or permit is required they have NO LEGAL CAUSE TO DEMAND that you cease your travels, Search you to find that you did have a concealed weapon, or arrest you.

Once the officer does have RAS as a minimum to initiate an investigation or PC that you are, have, or are about to violate the law he has EVERY legal right to stop you and demand and ID AND once he has PC that you have, are currently, or about to violate a specific statute or several statutes, ARREST you.

Additionally to your query--- Since it is a legal requirement that one have an operator's license to LAWFULLY operate a motor vehicle on the roads, Is it lawful or OK for an officer to stop vehicles randomly with no RAS or PC of ANY illegal actions simply to verify that the vehicle operator does have a driver's license?

Now, IF you were to suggest or encourage anyone to carry a concealed weapon in violation of the law would be a rules violation of this forum. I answered your query on this as a hypothetical ONLY. Forum requirments are to advocate for LAWFUL ACTIONS ONLY.

As you pointed out, absent of any other PC, an officer should not be able to stop me just because he's seen that I have a concealed weapon. So then why even have concealed carry laws? Just for another way to make criminals out of the law-abiding? As a way to extort more money from us by requiring licenses? When you stop and think it through, it can become rather infuriating.

And yes, it was all hypothetical. I don't participate in illegal activities... at least, not on this level (I've been known to speed on occasion).

 

[DaveT319]

Would you answer your own question so we can see what you've learned?

In theory it would be "yes", but I sure as hell would not want to be caught doing so!

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

In theory it would be "yes", but I sure as hell would not want to be caught doing so!

Uh, if you are carrying a concealed weapon, how would the cops know you had a weapon....?

 

[JoeSparky]

As you pointed out, absent of any other PC, an officer should not be able to stop me just because he's seen that I have a concealed weapon. So then why even have concealed carry laws? Just for another way to make criminals out of the law-abiding? As a way to extort more money from us by requiring licenses? When you stop and think it through, it can become rather infuriating.

And yes, it was all hypothetical. I don't participate in illegal activities... at least, not on this level (I've been known to speed on occasion).

I believe the weapons control law started in POST US CIVIL WAR SOUTH by Democrats attempting to disarm the newly freed slaves. They passed laws prohibiting those of color from possessing, then seized the weapons, then a few days later the KKK showed up and did those vile and abusive things they did. For some reason the KKK did not like having those they were violating having the ability to effectively DEFEND THEMSELVES!!!!!!

ALL these laws are an effort control and disarm. Even the prohibition of felons as they simply expand the list of felonies or write laws that encompass misdemeanors in certain situations resulting in a lifetime ban of firearms possession.

I fully support the concept of allowing ANYONE the ability to defend themselves (2nd US Constitutional amendment) as long as they are not presently incarcerated or on probation/parole or court ordered INPATIENT treatment for MENTAL DISABILITIES. If they as "safe" to be in the public they should have ALL their Civil Rights.

 

[JoeSparky]

Uh, if you are carrying a concealed weapon, how would the cops know you had a weapon....?

And even if he did know/suspect that you have a concealed weapon, how does he know that you don't have a permit to conceal where such permit is required.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

In theory it would be "yes", but I sure as hell would not want to be caught doing so!

check out a recent supreme case,,, US V. Black...

cops came to roust his OCing friend.
Black runs away.
Cops chase and catch him.
He is searched and ID'd.
They find he is a felon! He has a concealed gun! He doesn't have a permit/license to carry! duh,, he is a felon!!!!

Found,,, running is OK! Search was Unreasonable!
Throw out the evidence,,, Let him go!!!

 

[DaveT319]

So now running from the police is no longer grounds for pursuit and detention? Man, that's going to make future episodes of COPS kinda boring...

 

[JoeSparky]

I was going to suggest one scenario where the LEO could stop you LEGALLY (with RAS) simply because he KNEW that you had a concealed weapon where it was illegal to do so and that location did not recognize ANY permit to conceal but then they would need RAS as a minimum to believe that you were NOT an active duty or retired LEO carrying under the special system provided by LEO's under FEDERAL law!

So, NOPE, RAS is still required as a minimum not the mere fact they knew you had a concealed weapon.