Is a request for your ID really an infringement of your rights?

[Eagleks]

Yes there are states where you must present ID when requested.

You might read the fine print too.... a lot of them go on to say ... "IF" you have one on you. Otherwise you are only obligated to supply your name and where you live. Our State requires you to show an ID if requested by an Officer... IF you have one on you. There are no laws, unless you can point one out to me, that requires you to carry an ID.

What do you think many of homeless carry around with them ? Their driver's license ? Their CC permit ?

If I'm not driving, I'm not carrying concealed, there is no need for me to be carrying an ID. Often when I walk my dogs.... I don't have one on me. There is no requirement for me to carry "my papers" .... to prove I'm a citizen either..... so ..... why would more be required of me than an illegal alien in our country ?

That would be a rather fun legal argument..... which I'm betting they would lose. I can think of a lot of attorneys I know that would love to take that one on.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[tacman605]

Buzz. There is a difference between an officer randomly stopping a vehicle to check for a drivers license and a safety check.

It is unlawful for an officer to stop a vehicle without PC to see if the driver has a license. A safety check is a situation where a random number of vehicles is check for license, registration, insurance (if required) and so on. They do not check every vehicle it is basically luck of the draw so to speak.

[OldVet]

"That would be a rather fun legal argument..... which I'm betting they would lose. I can think of a lot of attorneys I know that would love to take that one on. "

There was a case in CA where a black guy was arrested for not carrying ID while walking through white neighborhoods. He eventually won in the SCOTUS, and without trying to interpret all the legaleze, unless conducting an activity that requires a license or ID, one only need to orally identify one's self if asked by LEO's. Physical forms of ID is not mandatory.

[shockwave]

The key case here is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Hiibel, the court ruled that if an officer asks you for your name, you are obligated to give it to him. This was a major turning point.

Prior to this, if some bull-hick copper brushing donut crumbs off his jacket started yammering at you, demanding ID or whatnot, you had every legal right to give him the finger, and tell him to buzz off. Without probable cause, no officer of the law had any right to interrogate you.

Post Hiibel, we're in a different world. Now, any cop, any clown with a badge, can accost you and demand ID and whatever he or she likes without cause or justification. Maybe they think you are "hinky," or maybe there's a MWAG call, or whatever, but the harness bull can now roll up on you and start barking orders in your face and if you fail to comply in any respect, you'll likely be Tasered.

We are in a whole new world, folks. Personally, I liked it a whole lot better when you could tell a cop to "buzz off" and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it unless they had enough evidence to take to court.

[suntzu]

The key case here is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Hiibel, the court ruled that if an officer asks you for your name, you are obligated to give it to him. This was a major turning point.

Prior to this, if some bull-hick copper brushing donut crumbs off his jacket started yammering at you, demanding ID or whatnot, you had every legal right to give him the finger, and tell him to buzz off. Without probable cause, no officer of the law had any right to interrogate you.

Post Hiibel, we're in a different world. Now, any cop, any clown with a badge, can accost you and demand ID and whatever he or she likes without cause or justification. Maybe they think you are "hinky," or maybe there's a MWAG call, or whatever, but the harness bull can now roll up on you and start barking orders in your face and if you fail to comply in any respect, you'll likely be Tasered.

We are in a whole new world, folks. Personally, I liked it a whole lot better when you could tell a cop to "buzz off" and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it unless they had enough evidence to take to court.

I totally disagree with you....this is not a country where a person in authority should be able to "ask for papers" just because. They should need cause.

[OldVet]

The LEOs I worked with told me otherwise, that unless they had PC or RS, I could tell to them to buzz off and go on my way. But in any case, the LEOs can only ask you to identify yourself, one is NOT required to carry identification for the sake of compliance.

From the above cited case:
"The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted that “identify himself” to mean to merely state his name. As of April 2008, 23 other states[2] have similar laws."

[wmhawth]

Is a request for you ID really an infringement of your rights?

A request isn't a demand. Anyone can "request" anything. If an officer approaches me and gives me the old "kennkarte bitte" and I politely decline, his next move will determine whether or not my rights are infringed upon. There's no point in crying if you're not actually hurt.

[FUZZ]

If you walk out of your job at a pharmaceutical manufacturer should law enforcement be able to do a drug test on you as you leave the parking lot just because of where you work?

I'm a 'big-picture' guy and even those two things don't seem related.

[Taurahe]

I didnt read all 12 pages of commentary, and all the hypothesis and what ifs or created scenarios aside, in many jurisdictions by obtaining a CCW permit, you agree to produce said permit when requested by proper authorities. Probable cause does not apply hear. It is the same as a LEO asking for your drivers license. When you sign a DL, you agree to provide it when requested, at any time. This is what some don't realize. Me personally, if a LEO asked for my ID and permit while open carrying, I will gladly provide it. Their is no service done by being a stubborn oaf, even though you are legally allowed to do so. Being legally right and being in the right are not always one and the same.

[OldVet]

Loss of rights are seldom stricken in one blow, usually in small pieces, and that is the basis of the debate here.

Here in FL, we have very limited OC, and there is no license requirement for it. The law states if asked for your license while CC'ing, you must produce it and a form of state-recognized ID. There's no room for discussion there--the law says you have to. As for OC, no such requirement exisits to my knowledge, therefore there is no "license" to be requested, and one is not required to carry ID on your person in this state.

So it's up to the individual as to how far they wish to carry the "rights" fight over ID. It may or may not be worth the battle, but it often takes sucha battle to "preserve" a right.

[palmcoaster]

If asked,I dont not question. I hand over my id

[OldVet]

Baaaaaa!

[Jemsaal]

I think this is an issue of cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Take 100 people. Have them open carry in downtown Anytown every day in random places along the shopping or restaurant areas . . .

Scenario 1: when confronted by the police, have every one of them claim that they do not need to produce ID, and not do so. The result will be, in every case, a suspicious police officer. Suspicion leads to further scrutiny and watching for reasons to now legally ask for ID. So, Jaywalking? ID Please. Absentmindedly stopping in front of a bank when you can't figure out where your car is parked? ID Please (and yes, that is a legitimate request at that time). Etc. etc. If it continues, the city will begin to pass ordinances against OC. That becomes more of a police state than I ever want to live in.

Scenario 2: when confronted by police, have everyone of them produce ID and be polite. By the end of the week, when the police are tired of stopping 10-15 people or more a day and not a single arrest comes from it, when the dispatchers are overwhelmed by all the calls coming in and every report is negative for violations, it'll become commonplace for the police to see OC and they'll recognize it's a waste of time to question. After all, why stop someone and then waste the next 10 minutes calling it in when every single time, nothing comes back?

The first scenario arouses suspicion and puts the LEOs and Carrying community in a contentious relationship from the beginning. The second scenario puts the LEOs at ease and quickly acclimates them to seeing weapons carried by normal citizens with no intent or violations of the law. I know everyone wants to scream, "The Constitution, the Constitution." The problem is, the Constitution is a scrap of parchment that only holds meaning as long as there is an agreement that it holds meaning. The more we push on this issue, the more it will be circumvented and reduced in importance. All it takes is one judge being replaced on the SC, and 5-4 decisions can decimate the constitution.

tl;dr version - you can catch more flies with honey . . .

[SR9C33]

No questions asked I will hand over my ID.. I have nothing to hide and they are just doing their job. Scold me for this, but I would want an LEO to check any guy out walking around with an exposed gun.

[suntzu]

No questions asked I will hand over my ID.. I have nothing to hide and they are just doing their job. Scold me for this, but I would want an LEO to check any guy out walking around with an exposed gun.

So I take it your are against the 2A and OC....