This is a discussion on police stop man for open carrying (vid) within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Badey I don't like to make assumptions about what people are saying. I am wanting to know how you personally sacrificing 5 ...
Just another thought, in MI at least you are not required to even have ID on you unless you are driving. The MI State Police put out "Legal Updates" to inform/remind officers of what they should and should not do.
Please see update #86 Dated October 26 2010
MSP - Legal Resources
This paste is a small section of the #86 update regarding to ID.
I would think most states have similatr updates.Officers are reminded that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Carrying a non-concealed firearm is generally legal. Officers may engage in a consensual encounter with a person carrying a non-concealed pistol; however, in order to stop a citizen, officers are required to have reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. For example, officers may not stop a person on the mere possibility the person may be carrying an unregistered pistol. Officers must possess facts rising to the level of reasonable suspicion to believe the person is carrying an unregistered pistol.
Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation.
Updates 54, 55, 66 and 86 all touch on firearms, mostly OC related.
Also, someone who is bent on doing harm is not going to advertise it by OCing...
Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine
Are the only people allowed to stand up for their rights men who are over 6'/230 lbs (all muscle, of course) with deep voices? How quick does this thread get closed when the physical attributes of LEO's start getting presented?
LEO's are supposed to enforce the law, how are we to trust them to do this when they are obviously ignorant of it? - especially when it involves such a simple, straight forward issue.
The dozens of wanted felons everyone know are in the area but DA won't deal with.
Instead he is busting a person that has broken no law nor given any reason to think they have..
No madder what anyone say every time you are stopped by LEO office a report is made it shows the time your name and HIS reason for the stop. You may never see what he wrote down,
But others will.
He won't stop the gang banger, heck he already knows the guy has a dozen convictions is out on bail if he does the ACLU and half the City leaders will be after his job if he does.
Welcome to the world we created.
Enforce the law and not try to use your position to enforce your political agenda. If they did that maybe many of us would chose not to carry at all.
It is the lawless Cities they have created that forces us to carry. I wish the heck I did not need to I hate carrying it is a pain in the neck.
He shouldn't have to change his behavior. On the previous hand, if the police are stopping and interviewing him on a daily basis so that he will reach the same conclusion that was just articulated then this is as wrong as wrong can get. This is what I was referring to earlier when I said that it is above the pay-grade of LEO to modify behavior that they do not agree with - assuming said behavior is legal behavior. The OC'er should not have to modify his behavior because someone doesn't like to see him practice the rights that have been granted to him within the community he resides. Earlier I said that we shouldn't fight with LEOs if we don't like the laws that are in place, we should do what we can to have said laws changed. The same goes for LEO, if they do not like OC'ing and they feel it puts their lives as well as the community in danger, then it is not up to them to fight with persons exercising their rights under the law. They should do what they can within their powers to have the laws changed.
Before reading this thread, I didn't see a very good reason for someone to withhold their ID if stopped. I just thought that it had to do with an individual making a decision to not give up a right they have, etc. Now, I see that they may have a good reason. If its really true that there's a record made with every stop and your name will be on that record then I'm not so sure I want to release my name either. Even if the record is not admissible in court, who is to say that it will not generate bias in the future? "Oh, so-and-so was stopped according to this report last week and now I'm being called to detain him tonight - he must be troubled and now a person of suspicion, etc."
No, he's right. Give up your rights and it's all over.
Glock 23 - CZ 452 ZKM Special
Walther P22 - LMT STD 16
Mossberg 500A - Kahr P380
Henry H001Y - Winchester 12
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield
Mossberg 500B - Marlin 336Y
Your logic and question are silly at best.