"Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD." - also applies to LEO's stopping citizens who aren't doing anything illegal.
Police need RAS or PC to stop and detain you. Possession of a firearm alone is not evidence of a crime being committed or of a crime about to be committed. Absent some other reason (e.g., you fit the description of a suspect, etc.), the police cannot detain you.
Like driving a car. Unless you break the law (e.g., run a red light, do a slow-n-go, drive like a drunk), the police cannot stop and demand your license just to make sure that you're "licensed." How old would it get if you were getting stopped five times a day for driving your car - you broke no laws, but the police are just "checking you out" because they saw you were driving a car?
It's interesting to see how many people believe they have a right to defend themselves as individual and also believe that they have a duty to acquiesce to organized power. Except for the ends (and sometimes not even there) there is a fine line between government and organized crime. Our founders knew that and deliberately used the Bill of Rights, separation of power, and checks and balances to limit the chance of that fine line being blurred.
This has been mentioned many times before, but I'm pretty sure it has been deemed illegal for LEOs to randomly stop law abiding drivers to make sure they are licensed, don't have any warrants, etc. Why should the mere presence of a gun be treated any differently if the OCer is not breaking any laws?
Bottom line, ".......shall not be infringed." It is as simple as that.
The police are *'hunters of men'
The police are looking for criminals
The police are looking to put someone in jail
And they are looking at you.
*"Arrest Proof Yourself", by Dale Carson former police officer and FBI agent.
So long as "peace" is being kept (ie, no actual crime or legitimate probable cause of intent/commission), and so long as a person's just going about his/her business, I'd say there isn't cause to stop and demand "papers" (identification). Though the tangled web of duty, job description, statutes, interpretations of the Constitution and case law have resulted in a nearly "papers, please" environment, in practice.
Didn't read the whole thread so maybe this has been addressed, but...
I service ATM's for a living, many in rural "beside the highway" locations, and am required by my job to open carry, so being stopped for ID (even in my uniform shirt, with marked truck sitting beside the ATM) is always an infringement on my rights, since time is money.
I'm shocked at how many LEO's think they need to nose into my operations, many admittedly because "they hadn't seen me in these parts before".
None have ever mentioned a MWAG call nor have they ever been to dispatched to an alarm going off as I have to call and log in with the bank's security provider when I arrive. This always happens before I ever leave the truck.
Bad LEO training is almost always to blame for these stops, and that's almost always where rights abuses begin. Love me a good LEO, but they're not ubiquitous.
For clarity, I'm not the armored car company that brings the money back and forth, in fact I'm never in the money compartment, I fix the guts of the machine, printer paper roll, touchscreen etc,--think Diebold or LeFebure, but not actually either of them.
Just a simple man here with a simple answer.....if it is required by law to show your ID show it. If it is not required tell the officers politely that you will not. If I am expected to obey the law then they should respect my rights if I am not breaking any laws. Life really is very simple.
IMHO most people that would get into a pi$$ing contest with a LEO over something so trivial were out looking for the argument anyhow.
Maybe they never got picked first for the baseball games, or they got beat up a lot in elementary school. Something along those lines.
Arguing with the LEO could keep them from doing their job somewhere else. It's not like he's gonna spam your email or hack your Facebook account with the info.
Handing LEO your ID will take 1 minute if your an upstanding and legal resident. I'd rather that officer be chasing a BG with his/her spare time
Second Bold: Uh, excuse me...if the LEO has more important things to do he should not be asking for ID if it is not required for the person to give it to him. The LEO is wasting time in that circumstance. If it is required to show ID then the LEO is in the right.
BTW: i was a starting left wing in HS hockey in Massachusetts...so I don't get your point about being picked last. I would suspect the kids that are picked last have self esteem issues and are use to bowing to authoritative figures.
As the OP I just want to point out I only asked this question to generate disscussion. I do not care either way how you handle the situation. I am fine with showing my HCP and moving about my bussniss.
This is a topic that we all should be interested in and there are several very good responses here in this thread. As a recent respondent stated, police officers don't always know the subtleties of all laws, but this one is important enough that
most do simply because the very act of stopping/detaining you nudges a civil rights violation. (yes, we still do have SOME rights!)
The case law that governs these "incidental" inquiries by an LEO is Terry vs. Ohio. (you should look it up)
The court's findings of note in this case were that an LEO does NOT have the right to stop and detain you unless he/she has definitive cause to believe that a crime has or is about to occur. We as gun owners need to KNOW the law here as well; not to create an argument with the officer but to know when the legal kine has been crossed. The old saying of "win the battle but lose the war" comes to mind here. To me. the most important thought in all of this is that as gun owners that carry, we must be seen as the officers friend; not his foe! Consequently, you do have the right to not comply unless the officer tells you that you are being detained for suspicion of a crime; but SHOULD YOU? My advice is; be pleasant, keep your hands where he/she can see them and simply ask "is there a problem officer?" At that point, the LEO must state his/her
intent and ask for your complicity unless you are being placed under arrest. IT is my firm belief that most police officers
make far better friends than enemies and the officer will probably be relieved that you are pleasant and compliant. This
may also go a long ways in reaffirming that we are not all "gun nuts" but responsible and law-abiding folks!