that sucks. im glad i dont live there. obviously if you are carrying you would be sure to know the law and have it with you.that way you wouldnt have to worry about cops invading your privacy.
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.
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
That is not the issue here. In most states no permit is required for open carry. So it is a matter of a law abiding citizen in public conducting themselves in a lawful peaceful manner and being detained against their will than intimidated into producing their "paperwork" when in fact they are being unlawfully detained and have no legal requirement to produce their ID.
Is it OK for the police to stop you and demand your paperwork because you are carrying a bible?
Is it OK for the police to stop you and demand your paperwork because you are Black?
Is it OK for the police to stop you and demand your paperwork because you are Red?
Is it OK for the police to stop you and demand your paperwork because you are Yellow?
Is it OK for the police to stop you and demand your paperwork because you are White or Brown?
Is it OK for the police to stop you and demand your paperwork because you are wearing a red shirt? Or a turban?
Of course not. So why is it OK for the police to stop you and demand your paperwork because you are open carrying a gun?
The very idea that you are somehow making yourself look guilty because you do not want to comply with an unlawful, unconstitutional demand says volumes about how far down the road we have gone towards becoming a police state. It is absolutely horrifying to see how effective the kool aid and brainwashing has become. That so many see anyone who wishes the have their privacy and dignity respected as some kind of trouble maker or criminal
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.
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?
I suppose what I do not understand is why so many seem to believe that it is OK for a police officer to violate the law. To me a police officer who violates the law is no different than any other criminal. In fact he is worse than your run of the mill rapist murderer or robber if he is using his authority as a police officer to commit the crime.