Being adamant about not providing info. when asked

[Jmeadows]

The way I look it is if you don't want to be harrased just carry concealed. If you have a permit then it should not be a problem. I carry concealed simply because i do not like bringing attention to myself. Now I know some will disagree and go on about open carry just cause they can. I get that. But don't ***** when your approached. Its going to happen so deal with it. I train police in hand to hand on regular basis and they don't want to start anything but they are suppose to uphold public saftey. They find it a pain in the ass as much as you do when they ask you about accw permit. Give it go on. I always tell when I'm pulled over that I have a gun. Nothing bad has happened yet. Actually I have had some interesting conversations with the cops afterwards. Any way just be prepared to deal with the consequences.

 

[Firefighterchen]

You have no more right to carry a firearm in public than Joe Citizen has to operate a motor vehicle on a public road.

You really should not be living in the USA.

The way I look it is if you don't want to be harrased just carry concealed. If you have a permit then it should not be a problem. I carry concealed simply because i do not like bringing attention to myself. Now I know some will disagree and go on about open carry just cause they can. I get that. But don't ***** when your approached. Its going to happen so deal with it. I train police in hand to hand on regular basis and they don't want to start anything but they are suppose to uphold public saftey. They find it a pain in the ass as much as you do when they ask you about accw permit. Give it go on. I always tell when I'm pulled over that I have a gun. Nothing bad has happened yet. Actually I have had some interesting conversations with the cops afterwards. Any way just be prepared to deal with the consequences.

If they don't like it, why would they do it? Public safety? Laughable. In general and specifically from the video's being posted recently on this site, how many open carriers being unlawfully detained admitted to being on their way to commit a crime? None I have seen. How many of the open carriers were arrested for illegally possessing a firearm? None I have seen. None of the videos posted on here of open carriers being harrassed by officer ended in an arrest. WHY? Because the officers realized they couldn't bully their way through when the citizen knew the laws better than the officer.

I have a friend who is a deputy, I routinely ask him questions about the laws to see it from another perspective. His best line, "Oh come on, by now you should know officers don't actually know the laws."

Actually since I started open carrying, I realized that I DO NOT expect to be stopped. If I am, then there is a problem with the officer putting his opinion over the laws he is supposed to be enforcing and his departments policies. In my state, no permit or ID is needed to open carry, so it's more than just "because I can." It's the only legitimate exercise of the 2A RIGHT, not some permission slip infringement privilege.

 

[maine04619]

The situation would be much easier if you just answer the questions and move on. Now, if they won't stop hassling you after you've cooperated, then I could see the point of refusing to cooperate further. So, is there something I'm missing?

Ok lets look at history. Our founders gave us the Constitution and the bill of rights. Slowly the rights we are supposedly guaranteed have been whittled down by those saying it is for the better why not agree and comply. Lets stay on firearms. We have gone from free and rightful bans on certain firearms trade of firearms to paperwork to be able to buy one all being in direct contradiction to the second amendment. So ask yourself this at what point do YOU give up YOUR rights? If you have no legal obligation to give information then you shoudl not have to. If you are not committing a crime you shoudl not be hassled by the police. So Croute at what point do you say no I do not have to do that? When they ask if they can take yo blood? When they wish to search your home without cause or warrant? When your detained because you do not have your papers? This is the problem to many say just do what your asked what does it hurt. History has show us the price is VERY high and if we continue to sure I do not have to but go ahead and search me or stop me with NO cause then we are doomed to a ever growing nanny state where you have no rights.

 

[NavyLCDR]

It's really just a question of whether you have an arsehole attitude or not. If you can't distinguish between a legitimate inquiry and harassment, that's your problem.

Ever heard of a random DUI checkpoint? You have no more right to carry a firearm in public than Joe Citizen has to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Same principle applies. If the authority wants to see your license, you show it.

Enough of the arseholes go about parading their "rights" do be themselves, and eventually the rights will actually dry up and blow away with the political winds.

Random DUI checkpoints and insurance checks are illegal and banned in my state of Washington.

"If the authority wants to see your license, you show it" is exactly how our rights get whittled away. It's too bad in this country that most of the major court cases upholding the rights of citizens against police interference have come from criminals getting their convictions overturned. Those major court cases should be coming from Joe Citizen who was required to "just show his license" in order to go about his daily life.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Ok lets look at history. Our founders gave us the Constitution and the bill of rights.

Speaking of the founders of this country, where would we be if they just "paid their taxes" and "showed their licenses"? We would still be living under English rule and not having this discussion AGAIN, because only about 1% of us would own firearms as "collectors" and none of us would be legally carrying for self protection. But - according to some here - that's what they SHOULD have done, right? Just "pay the tax" and "show their license" when required by government so they wouldn't cause drama.

The founders of this country started a war standing up to their government, talk about drama! We are complaining about a few minutes of not handing over our rights to a police officer because they politely ask us to, for "public safety" of course. I'm sure everything the founding fathers stood up to was for "public safety" as well.

 

[kwimby]

Random DUI checkpoints, driver's license checks and insurance checks are illegal and banned in my state of Washington.

Glad to hear you're encouraging all the scofflaws, drunks and other ne'er-do-wells to participate in whatever carnage they'd care to whip up on your roads.

See how far your "rights" take you after they wheel you into the emergency room. Maybe if you survive, the uninsured motorist who almost killed you will pony up for the medical bills.

Good luck with that!

 

[Firefighterchen]

Random DUI checkpoints, driver's license checks and insurance checks are illegal and banned in my state of Washington.

Glad to hear you're encouraging all the scofflaws, drunks and other ne'er-do-wells to participate in whatever carnage they'd care to whip up on your roads.

See how far your "rights" take you after they wheel you into the emergency room. Maybe if you survive, the uninsured motorist who almost killed you will pony up for the medical bills.

Good luck with that!

Sad to hear you encourage totalitarianism . Rather live in a free state than a police state. Good luck with that.

 

[Dennis1209]

Maybe human nature?

Most people want to go through life as hassle free and safely as possible. A few want to challenge authority, policy, rules, regulations and common sense. A dedicated few want to be one massive gluteus maximus

Most people don't want to rock the boat unless there's a legitimate concern or something out of the ordinary or an uncomfortable / questionable situation.

Many people are not lawyers and don't know firearm laws and regulations, not to mention the sight of a gun in their presence scares the corn out of their crap?

 

[Seeya]

And just so you know....
Link Removed

Your Picture dosn't qoute this:

Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)

 

[Rich M]

I don't have anything against any LEOs personally, I like to keep my distance and keep interactions to a minimum.

Like someone else said, they are just people like us. Well, I simply don't trust most people/strangers. For good reason.

Link Removed

 

[NavyLCDR]

Glad to hear you're encouraging all the scofflaws, drunks and other ne'er-do-wells to participate in whatever carnage they'd care to whip up on your roads.

See how far your "rights" take you after they wheel you into the emergency room. Maybe if you survive, the uninsured motorist who almost killed you will pony up for the medical bills.

Good luck with that!

How about this.... let's have a 4th amendment permit. Just to keep society safe, let's make it good for one year. You pay your $150 fee to the county sheriff and they do their background check. If everything comes back good, you get a "don't search me" card with your photo and description on it, just like a driver's license. Then, police can station themselves wherever they want to...let's say Wal Mart. They stop everyone going in to Wal Mart to check them for warrants, DUI in the parking lot. If you don't have your "don't search me" 4th amendment card, then the police can demand ID, wait for the warrants check, and in the meanwhile frisk you and search your bags/purses for contraband. Or, if you do have your 4th amendment card, all you have to do is show it, the police verify it is valid, and you are on your way. Just think about safe society would be then! Don't you think that is a FANTASTIC idea? How many people do you think go into Wal Mart that have an arrest warrant on them for something! Oh, but we will give you a break, if you bring in your previous "4th amendment don't search me card", then we will renew your card with just a background check for $75.

Or.... heck.... even better. Lets tag everyone with an identity microchip at birth. That way we can get rid of all this foolishness and all a police officer has to do is point a radio receiver at you and get instant results. We could have scanners on street corners - entrances to stores. OMG! That is the TOTAL answer right there! Society would be completely safe then! Since you have no problem identifying yourself to police for no other reason than they ask, "for public safety", then the identity microchip would be no problem, "for public safety", right?

 

[Firefighterchen]

Maybe human nature?

Most people want to go through life as hassle free and safely as possible. A few want to challenge authority, policy, rules, regulations and common sense. A dedicated few want to be one massive gluteus maximus

Most people don't want to rock the boat unless there's a legitimate concern or something out of the ordinary or an uncomfortable / questionable situation.

Many people are not lawyers and don't know firearm laws and regulations, not to mention the sight of a gun in their presence scares the corn out of their crap?

It's amazing how many people in the gun community are sheep themselves...

 

[Seeya]

It's really just a question of whether you have an arsehole attitude or not. If you can't distinguish between a legitimate inquiry and harassment, that's your problem.

Ever heard of a random DUI checkpoint? You have no more right to carry a firearm in public than Joe Citizen has to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Same principle applies. If the authority wants to see your license, you show it.

Enough of the arseholes go about parading their "rights" do be themselves, and eventually the rights will actually dry up and blow away with the political winds.

Private use of the Public ( We the People Own them) Roads is a right. It is not a right touse them for comercial purposes. A drivers license is a tax upon a right.

You unwittingly enter into a contract with the state. The driver license is an infrigment of a right . Know your rights.

United States Code Title 18 is the criminal code of thr Republic of the United States of America, and Article 6 (Supremacy Clause) is the law of the land. State Law does not trump Federal Law.


USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 2 › § 31

(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

(10) Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

So a license is not required to exercise a right.

18 USC § 31 - Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

Right to Travel

Supreme Law School : E-mail : Box 036 : Msg 03678

 

[Seeya]

How about this.... let's have a 4th amendment permit. Just to keep society safe, let's make it good for one year. You pay your $150 fee to the county sheriff and they do their background check. If everything comes back good, you get a "don't search me" card with your photo and description on it, just like a driver's license. Then, police can station themselves wherever they want to...let's say Wal Mart. They stop everyone going in to Wal Mart to check them for warrants, DUI in the parking lot. If you don't have your "don't search me" 4th amendment card, then the police can demand ID, wait for the warrants check, and in the meanwhile frisk you and search your bags/purses for contraband. Or, if you do have your 4th amendment card, all you have to do is show it, the police verify it is valid, and you are on your way. Just think about safe society would be then! Don't you think that is a FANTASTIC idea? How many people do you think go into Wal Mart that have an arrest warrant on them for something! Oh, but we will give you a break, if you bring in your previous "4th amendment don't search me card", then we will renew your card with just a background check for $75.

Or.... heck.... even better. Lets tag everyone with an identity microchip at birth. That way we can get rid of all this foolishness and all a police officer has to do is point a radio receiver at you and get instant results. We could have scanners on street corners - entrances to stores. OMG! That is the TOTAL answer right there! Society would be completely safe then! Since you have no problem identifying yourself to police for no other reason than they ask, "for public safety", then the identity microchip would be no problem, "for public safety", right?

roflamao

Now you let the cat out of the bag, the "Man" is going to push for this to become law.

 

[kwimby]

How about this.... let's have a 4th amendment permit.

No thanks, I already have driver's license and ccw permit, that's plenty for my purposes and the purpose of this discussion. But I'll give you points for hyperbole running right off the rails into a nonsense rant.

You unwittingly enter into a contract with the state. The driver license is an infrigment of a right.

Wrong. You need know know the definition of common words like "commercial" to recognize this simplistic relationship you seem to not understand. That would be the unwitting part.

(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes ...

WRT to federal govt's regulation of interstate commerce. Your quoted portion of USC has absolutely nothing to do with states regulating private drivers on state roads or any roads crossing within state jurisdiction. How you draw this connection illustrates your bent toward absurd interpretations of literally anything suiting your delusion.

 

[NavyLCDR]

No thanks, I already have driver's license and ccw permit, that's plenty for my purposes and the purpose of this discussion. But I'll give you points for hyperbole running right off the rails into a nonsense rant.

Really? Right off the rails into a nonsense rant? Well, let's see... a permit required to exercise the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms is called a "reasonable regulation." So, why not have reasonable regulation of the 4th Amendment? And that is the real topic of this discussion, anyway, is the 4th Amendment. If we can "reasonably regulate" the 2nd Amendment, why not apply that to the 4th? Or how about let's reasonably regulate the 1st Amendment? Let's require a government permit to be obtained to go to church, or to post right here on this forum. Why is it that we are so willing to accept "reasonable regulation" of the 2nd Amendment, but not the other Bill of Rights amendments?

 

[Rich_S]

Really? Right off the rails into a nonsense rant? Well, let's see... a permit required to exercise the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms is called a "reasonable regulation." So, why not have reasonable regulation of the 4th Amendment? And that is the real topic of this discussion, anyway, is the 4th Amendment. If we can "reasonably regulate" the 2nd Amendment, why not apply that to the 4th? Or how about let's reasonably regulate the 1st Amendment? Let's require a government permit to be obtained to go to church, or to post right here on this forum. Why is it that we are so willing to accept "reasonable regulation" of the 2nd Amendment, but not the other Bill of Rights amendments?

So you voluntarily allow the U.S. Government to tell you what to do, where to go, when to go there, what to wear, how to wear it, and how to cut your hair. You also allow them to prohibit you from carrying a firearm into your workplace. However, you get all up in arms when someone wants to show a firearms permit to quickly and easily end confrontation with an LEO. IBTL.

 

[kwimby]

So, why not have reasonable regulation of the 4th Amendment?

Because that would be patently stupid, unless you can provide a sensible argument as to why law enforcement's inspection of pertinent legal documents under appropriate circumstances generally constitutes unreasonable search and seizure. Nobody but an irrational fool would argue that to be the case in any comprehensive way whatsoever.

 

[Rich_S]

Because that would be patently stupid, unless you can provide a sensible argument as to why law enforcement's inspection of pertinent legal documents under appropriate circumstances generally constitutes unreasonable search and seizure. Nobody but an irrational fool would argue that to be the case in any comprehensive way whatsoever.

The 4th is regulated by law. Study up on "no reasonable expectation of privacy" sometime.

 

[kwimby]

The 4th is regulated by law. Study up on "no reasonable expectation of privacy" sometime.

Exactly. Not sure why you quoted me, because that is my point exactly. NavyLCD was the one suggesting regulating the 4th with a permit, which I decried as patently stupid.

Some people just seem to have unreasonable expectations.