Defensive Carry banner

Question for OCers

6K views 53 replies 30 participants last post by  LongRider 
#1 · (Edited)
I've seen a few you-tube vids of guys getting confronted by police when OC-ing. The guys always tell the cops that they don't need to show thier IDs because they are not breaking any laws. I agree! Then the cop says "we got a call of a man with a gun and we have to check it out so please show the ID."

My question is, why doesn't the OCer just ask the cop "Why don't you go tell the caller that there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing? Cops are supposed to enforce the law and I'm pretty sure they should inform the public if they falsely accuse of something that is leagal. Have a nice day!"

If the cop still delays you then I'd get all the cops info, supervisors info, and set-up an appointment with the chief. Then I'd comply with anything they asked and really download on the chief.

Edit...More specifics
I was talking about the guys in the vids where they are all leagal in open carrying in whatever state they are in. If your not breaking the law you don't need to be harrased. Should you get pulled over and checked when driving the speed limit because your car can go faster? Should you be checked out if you have a lighter because you could start a fire?

My point is a leo should ask the caller what the person with the gun is doing and inform them right then that open carrying is legal. A guy walking his dog or carrying a sign or a video camera isn't causing anyone any harm. People are afraid of the guns. They need to be educated that they are only dangerous in a bg's hands. Most people are only educated by the news media and hollywood. If a leo doesn't know the laws he is paid to enforce, he needs to learn them. I had a run in with a deputy that came knocking on my door at 10:30pm one night but thats another story but the guy really had me po-ed because his lack of knowledge of the laws. He ad 3 major and a bunch of minor issues that he was way wrong on. He left tail tucked and NEVER wrote up a report! He was answering a "call" and no report! HMMmmm

I'm all for being complient with police unless they are 100% in the wrong. If they are not telling these "callers" they are responding to that nothing is illeagal, they they are 100% in the wrong. "Don't tread on me" or my leagal rights. If someone is offended by the sight of my legally possesed gun, they have the problem. Leos not informing these offended people are not doing any justice for gun owners rights and siding with the anti-gunners.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
In many states you're required to provide you license when "officially" contacted by an officer of the law. Oklahoma is one such state.
 
#3 ·
The videos are generally made when people are trying to make a point and bait the officers into doing something illegal caught on camera. I don't really think that those cases really help the cause, it just makes for pissed of police.

Depending on your sate laws, you may or may not be required to show ID, and if not, then I agree, you should not have to. I think most of the problems come when the OCer gives an attitude. As far as what you are suggesting, I would agree that attempting to educate the public and LEOs is a good idea, as is cooperating with an officer you are interacting with. Make it clear that you don't appreciate what is happening and that you will be taking it up the chain of command.

I think the key is attitude, attitude, attitude. Be respectfull. It sounds like you are trying to make a statement with the interaction you described, so make it a good statement as an ambassador of the firearm community, not a joke of a news story that makes the uninformed think we are all gun nuts.
 
#4 ·
As the rabbit above stated state laws differ and in many you have to show ID to the officer when requested.

When an officer is dispatched to a call he can not say "oh never mind I am not going" he has to respond and investigate the circumstances.
 
#25 ·
That's a rabbit? I thought it was a guinea pig. :emb:

That aside. Here in Missouri when LEO asks to see your I.D., you are by law to give it. They don't have to give a reason. I don't think that should be a big problem. Makes me wonder why in this state "people" (democrats) are grouching about having to show I.D. at the voting places.:rolleyes:
 
#5 ·
I have been stopped twice on MWAG calls. Both times hiking down a rural road. Same whacka Doodle called the cops twice. A transplant from Mass, go figure....Anyway, both times the LEO's were courteous. Just asked what I was doing (besides walking my dog LOL). I understood they had a call and they were assesing me and that is cool. That is what my insanely high porperty taxes go to. Neither time did they ask for an ID and I don't carry an ID when I OC because it is only when I hike, walk the dog, or snowshoe, or go to the county range which I hike or bike. If I go to the store along the way I always have a few bucks with me so no need for a wallet.

ANyway, the interaction with the LEO's was how it should go, they did their job, and I responded politely in kind. Maybe those idiots (oops, LEO's and election officials) in Indiana should take lessons so they don't have folks asking for an investigation. It really is not that hard for a LEO to respect a civilian and a civilian to respect a LEO's job.
 
#7 ·
While on a business trip, I was sitting by the hotel pool one evening, and an officer walked up and asked (through the fence) for my ID.

It never crossed my mind to make a big deal out of it. While handing it to him, he explained that someone had just robbed a nearby store and that I fit the description. A smile, nod and a "stay safe" later, I was laying back by the pool.

I was breaking no more laws than a legal OCer, only it never crossed my mind to make scene, because I didn't have a chip on my shoulder.
 
#35 ·
So store robbers don't carry ID but might sit by the pool? What if you were swimming and not in possession of your ID? Would he tie up his time escorting you to your room to check your ID? I fail to see the officer's logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: carracer and suntzu
#10 ·
This is going to vary with each state. Some states (like Indiana and soon to be Oklahoma) are licensed carry states. You must have a carry permit, by whatever name they use. If your carrying, open or concealed without the permit your in violation of the law. How is the LEO going to know if you have the permit, if you refuse to show it? States like Virginia are OC, no permit required. You can legally refuse to show a permit, but what is the purpose, unless your looking for a confrontation? I have no problem showing ID/Permit if asked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jem102
#11 ·
New language specific to OC once that takes effect in OK: "The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand."
 
#12 ·
Just show them your ID and go on your way. If you OC, you have to expect to get hassled sooner or later. Pick your battles. A renegade OC'er won't magically make OC legal across the country. Like it or not, it is the world we live in.
 
#13 ·
It has always baffled me why a LEO would want to see an ID when a person is not breaking a law. If I am exercising a constitutional right, does it really matter what my name is? "Show me your papers" is something I expect to see in a movie about NAZI Germany or Communist Russia. And if my saying no gives the officer an attitude, then why would his demanding it not give me an attitude? There is a difference between being polite and respectful and kissing butt.

We had 100,000 protesters in our Capital last winter. Does anyone think the police went around asking them for ID just because they were exercising their 1st Amendment right?
 
#15 ·
In Tennessee the law is written stating it is against the law to go armed, except with a state issued carry permit. And if while carrying, I refuse to show that permit, I will get an invitation to spend quality time in one of Tennessee's fine jails.

sent from my sending device
 
#17 ·
In Virginia you don't have to show ID upon demand unless you're in one of a couple localities. That being said my only adverse interaction with law enforcement related to open carry besides some really not nice looks happened in school while I wasn't carrying, but whether I give ID for me would depend on the demeanor of the officer, if he walks up and is polite and professional yea I'll go along with it and let him do his job. But if he isn't so no nice about it I'll push back and give him a hard time + a complaint


Look Sharp, Act Sharp, Be Sharp.
 
#19 ·
While I agree that you may not NEED to show an ID when OCing I think you should if asked. If you aren't doing anything wrong whats the big deal? What I hate the most about people on those YouTube videos is their attitude. They have to understand that, while it doesn't bother any of us on this forum, OCing is not a common practice in most places yet. For most people it is "scarey" to see a random person walking down the street with a pistol strapped to their hip.. because you know.. guns kill people :confused:

Not to mention, it is unlawful for a person convicted of a felony to be in possession of a firearm. So while I may not agree with an officer checking ID just for OCing, I can't say that it really bothers me. If I'm ever stopped for OCing I will gladly show an officer my ID and comply with whatever he asks. After all, I know I'm legal to be doing what I am doing. In Michigan, you don't need a permit to OC, just to conceal. So I'd show him my DL and CPL. It will probably get you on your way quicker to just comply with his simple request to show your ID then to be a jacka** to someone just trying to do their job.

Like it or not, guns make a lot of people uncomfortable. It is an unfortunate reality in today's society with all the idiots that give legal gun owners a bad and "crazy" name. If the cops get a MWAG call they have to investigate. Yes, it is a right to LEGALLY own a firearm and carry it. LEOs have to make sure the people that are carrying guns are legal to do so.
 
#21 ·
So if a couple cops knocked on the door of your house and asked to search you wouldn't have a problem 'cause after all you're not doing anything illegal and people do cook meth in their houses you know!!1 Not being facetious, just interested in where you would draw the line??
 
#34 ·
I still fail to see any advantage to an officer to know my name if I am not breaking the law. Asking for ID when there is no law being broken is just an act of bullying by the officer. Showing the citizen who has the authority and who is in charge. Works in Russia, not in the USA.
 
#39 ·
My question is, why doesn't the OCer just ask the cop "Why don't you go tell the caller that there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing? Cops are supposed to enforce the law and I'm pretty sure they should inform the public if they falsely accuse of something that is leagal. Have a nice day!"
In many Washington State jursdiction 911 operators do exactly that ask if the MWAG is doing anything threatening or criminal if not they explain that OC is legal. This came about because of several lawsuits for illegal detention

In many states you're required to provide you license when "officially" contacted by an officer of the law. Oklahoma is one such state.
Could you please provide a link to that Oklahoma statute? My understanding that is Unconstitutional. When I was growing up we were taught that one of the things the Nazi did was require people to carry papers that they had to present upon demand. We were also taught that our right to privacy is one of the benefits of living in a free nation, in America we would never be required to carry papers. It is a shame that anyone exercising their Constitutional Rights is now perceived as some kind of degenerate trouble maker.


The videos are generally made when people are trying to make a point and bait the officers into doing something illegal caught on camera. I don't really think that those cases really help the cause, it just makes for pissed of police.
Actually, if you investigate in most of those cases the video tape set ups come as a result of ongoing criminal conduct by a LEO under the color of law violating our Constitutional Rights. Sadly in cases like that where reason does not prevail because that PD thinks they are above the law and Constitution the only solution is to sue for civil rightist violations. Video Tapes provide excellent evidence.

I do understand many see those who stand up for all of our civil rights as trouble makes. Just as Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus and Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, Ezell Blair Jr. and David Richmond for sitting at the white counter, were called trouble makers. Just like those other trouble makers who stared all this rights and freedom crap so many here seem to find so objectionable. You know them George Read, Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean, George Clymer, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, John Morton, Benjamin Rush, George Ross, James Smith, James Wilson, George Taylor, John Adams, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry, Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton, Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery, Lewis Morris, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, William Floyd, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton, Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Jefferson, George Wythe, Thomas Nelson, Jr. , William Hooper, John Penn, Joseph Hewes, Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, Thomas Lynch, Jr., Thomas Heyward, Jr., Abraham Clark, John Hart, Francis Hopkinson, Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Samuel Huntington, Roger Sherman, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott, Charles Carroll, Samuel Chase, Thomas Stone, William Paca the jerks who signed that trouble making Declaration Of Independence.

Personally I would take great pride to be considered a trouble maker rather than being a complacent coward handing my paperwork over to those with a Gestapo mindset because it is the most convenient thing to do.
 
#41 ·
Could you please provide a link to that Oklahoma statute? My understanding that is Unconstitutional. When I was growing up we were taught that one of the things the Nazi did was require people to carry papers that they had to present upon demand. We were also taught that our right to privacy is one of the benefits of living in a free nation, in America we would never be required to carry papers. It is a shame that anyone exercising their Constitutional Rights is now perceived as some kind of degenerate trouble maker.
Here it is.

TITLE 21 § 1290.8 POSSESSION OF LICENSE REQUIRED-NOTIFICATION TO POLICE OF GUN

A. Except as otherwise prohibited by law, an eligible person shall have authority to carry a concealed handgun in this state when the person has been issued a handgun license from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act provided the person is in compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, and the license has not expired or been subsequently suspended or revoked. A person in possession of a valid handgun license and in compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall be authorized to carry such concealed handgun while bow hunting or fishing.

B. The person shall be required to have possession of his or her valid handgun license and a valid Oklahoma driver license or an Oklahoma State photo identification at all times when in possession of an authorized pistol. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punishable as a criminal offense as authorized by Section 1272 of this title or pursuant to any other applicable provision of law. In addition to any criminal prosecution which may result from not carrying the handgun license and the required identification with the authorized pistol as required by the provisions of this subsection, the person may be subject to an administrative fine for violation of the provisions of this subsection. The administrative fine shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) and shall be assessed by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation after a hearing and determination that the licensee is in violation of the provisions of this subsection. Any second or subsequent violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be grounds for the Bureau to suspend the handgun license for a period of six (6) months, in addition to any other penalty imposed.

Upon the arrest of any person for a violation of the provisions of this subsection, the person may show proof to the court that a valid handgun license and the other required identification has been issued to such person and the person may state any reason why the handgun license or the other required identification was not carried by the person as required by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act. The court shall dismiss an alleged violation of Section 1272 of this title upon payment of court costs, if proof of a valid handgun license and other required identification is shown to the court within ten (10) days of the arrest of the person. The court shall report a dismissal of a charge to the Bureau for consideration of administrative proceedings against the licensee.

C. It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to identify the fact that the person is in actual possession of a concealed handgun pursuant to the authority of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act when the person first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this state or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop. No person shall be required to identify himself or herself as a concealed handgun licensee when no handgun is in the person’s possession or in any vehicle in which the person is driving or is a passenger. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection shall, upon conviction, be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. In addition to any criminal prosecution for a violation of the provisions of this subsection, the licensee shall be subject to a six-month suspension of the license and an administrative fine of Fifty Dollars ($50.00), upon a hearing and determination by the Bureau that the person is in violation of the provisions of this subsection.

D. Any law enforcement officer coming in contact with a person whose handgun license is suspended, revoked, or expired, or who is in possession of a handgun license which has not been lawfully issued to that person, shall confiscate the license and return it to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation for appropriate administrative proceedings against the licensee when the license is no longer needed as evidence in any criminal proceeding.

E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed.
 
#42 ·
I see both sides of this....

I'll start by saying that cops who harass law abiding citizens for any reason should be the subject of an internal investigation, and probably shouldn''t be a cop anymore becuase they've obviously forgotten what their purpose is in the first place.

That being said there are several factors that can come into play with this type of scenario. First off, depending on the jurisdiction (WA is one of these), the "brandishing" law(s) are written deliberately vauge. Basically, if someone else can see that you have a firearm, and they claim that it intimidated them, then that technically is a crime. HOWEVER, most cops are going to figure out that you are not America's Most Wanted and leave you with a "Have A Nice Day Sir." Going into the situation is a different story however. From the perspective of the badge, it's not as issue of open carry. It's simply: Some called 911 on you. It's my job to appraoch you, and talk to you, I can see you have a gun. I'm going to want to know who you are and whether or not you're actually committing a crime. If I ask you for your license, and you refuse or try to deflect, then congrats! You've made me incredibly nervous, becuase for my safety I have to assume you're withholding your identity becuase you're hiding something.

However if you're cooperative, show me your ID, I run your name and you come back clean. Then I'll thank you for your patience/cooperation. Plus in the future I'm going to remember you as being cooperative and respectful, and thus I won't freak out everytime I see you OC'ing. I will also pass my experience with you on to the other officers in my squad.

Long story short: You're not doing anything wrong, so where's the sense in making the cops think that you are.
 
#43 ·
I'll start by saying that cops who harass law abiding citizens for any reason should be the subject of an internal investigation, and probably shouldn''t be a cop anymore becuase they've obviously forgotten what their purpose is in the first place.

That being said there are several factors that can come into play with this type of scenario. First off, depending on the jurisdiction (WA is one of these), the "brandishing" law(s) are written deliberately vauge. Basically, if someone else can see that you have a firearm, and they claim that it intimidated them, then that technically is a crime. HOWEVER, most cops are going to figure out that you are not America's Most Wanted and leave you with a "Have A Nice Day Sir." Going into the situation is a different story however. From the perspective of the badge, it's not as issue of open carry. It's simply: Some called 911 on you. It's my job to appraoch you, and talk to you, I can see you have a gun. I'm going to want to know who you are and whether or not you're actually committing a crime. If I ask you for your license, and you refuse or try to deflect, then congrats! You've made me incredibly nervous, becuase for my safety I have to assume you're withholding your identity becuase you're hiding something.

However if you're cooperative, show me your ID, I run your name and you come back clean. Then I'll thank you for your patience/cooperation. Plus in the future I'm going to remember you as being cooperative and respectful, and thus I won't freak out everytime I see you OC'ing. I will also pass my experience with you on to the other officers in my squad.

Long story short: You're not doing anything wrong, so where's the sense in making the cops think that you are.
And if I have no ID on me?
 
#44 ·
" Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his name."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
#45 ·
I really don't have any problem showing my permit to a LEO if he asks to see it because he got a MWAG call. He's just doing his job. There are states where you are not required to show ID if you are not doing anything illega but in TN you are required to show your permit if requested.
 
#47 ·
I think I get why people would get annoyed with having to show ID when not legally responsible to, but come on. How much of an inconvenience is it to show an officer your identification? I've seen some of the 'LE confronts OC'er' videos that were mentioned. Its just ridiculous to intentionally set out to become involved in a constitutional rights argument with law enforcement just to prove a point. Its THOSE people who contribute to the bad name that gun carriers get. Like the idiots that walk around with a rifle over their shoulder just because there isn't a law against it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kb2wji
#48 ·
The LEO is not being baited. If a person is with in the law and a LEO chose to confront them.
As for the ID you are not required to carry nor produce one and if the try to make you they are wrong not you.
Any stop by a LEO should be recorded and most often is weather you know it or not, so a harmless stop where you did nothing wrong can come back to haunt you.
If you cave in and comply with an improper demand of a LEO acting out side the law any action you take latter such as filing a complaint with the Police Chief or DA will end up in round file.
You can not retract the stop once you have been ID.
LEO seem to disagree but is is just as wrong to stop an OC acting with in the law as it is to stop a black man walking a city street because he looks out of place.
We are viewing LEO as they use to be, Honest hard working citizen charged with up holding the law for everyone. That is not what they are to day.
They are union members,members of a political unit with their own agenda. They carry a badge and a gun that allows them to get away with it.
We are required to stand against such action
 
  • Like
Reactions: LongRider
#50 ·
There was a long discussion thread in July about MWAG calls asking why such calls so frequently ended up being "OC'er vs Police." It was a discussion started by an active LEO, asking whether a better way could be found.

To my way of thinking, if the people in a state do not want mere carrying and unsubstantiated bare-fear based calls to be considered justification for stopping anyone, then it needs to be made part of the statutes, in plain unambiguous language. Such as: "Mere carrying of a firearm shall not constitute sufficient cause for stopping or detaining a person unless there is substantial corroborating evidence to show probable cause for criminal behavior occurring."

Lacking such statutory lingo, however, MWAG calls via bare-fear callers will continue ... and police will continue to be pressured and directed to make such stops.
 
#52 ·
The courts have repeatedly used that language and in some jurisdictions dispatchers are directed to ask what the MWAG is doing. If he is doing nothing illegal they are directed to explain that there is nothing illegal about OCing. As we have often seen, problems arise when a local PD decides that they will not tolerate OC and vow to harass those that do. As in the one case where the Chief of Police promised to have anyone OCing face down in the dirt. Court rulings and the Constitution be damned

A LEO is within his rights to detain someone until his investigation is completed. So the question is: How long does one wish to be detained merely to make a point?
No they do not have blanket authority to detain anyone they want. They have specific guidelines by which they must adhere to detain anyone. Basically a traffic stop, a criminal arrest and active investigation of a crime. OCing is not a crime therefore OC'ing in and of itself does not warrant a stop or detention of any kind.
 
#51 ·
Federal courts have already determined that people do not have to carry identification on them at all times. One must carry and produce a license or permit when conducting an activity that state/federal law requires such: Driving a motor vehicle requires a license, carrying a firearm either openly or concealed (in some states) etc. Should an LEO request you identify yourself, mere verbal identification is sufficient. Some form of ID may be requires for such ficntions such as buying tobacco or alcohol or voting.

What the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity.

The above case does not require one to produce ID, only to verbally identify ones self. The are many other examples of case law stating carrying of ID is not required.

A LEO is within his rights to detain someone until his investigation is completed. So the question is: How long does one wish to be detained merely to make a point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcox4freedom
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top