Being adamant about not providing info. when asked

[SGB]

The stupid is strong in this thread.

Deserteagle: sorry, thought a forum was to discuss things. I didn't know posing a question with 2 different viewpoints was forbidden. I won't do that anymore. SGB: I'd gladly show you my licenses, doesn't bother me a bit. Now, if you want to help me with this question, please let me know why I shouldn't divulge any information. That's the point I don't understand. Is it just not to be a sissy or not have a backbone? Is that all it is? If so, I guess it was just a stupid question. My bad.

If you're serious you need to study up on your 4th amendment rights. People comply with unlawful government intrusions every day because they don't know their rights and are afraid to stand up for themselves.

 

[Rabbitcreekok]

If I have broken no laws, I will not give my identification to a stranger. You can call me a "macho man" for sticking to my rights, I'll call you a "sissy" for giving yours up. Sound good?

That may work where you live, just don't do it in Dallas. There is a city code that requires a person to provide ID when asked by law enforcement. For no reason. No probable cause. Just because it is the law. I took many to jail for Failure to Provide ID. Of course, when I got them there and determined who they really were through fingerprints, they all had warrants out for their arrest. Gosh, could that be why they, and others, refuse to provide ID?

 

[SGB]

That may work where you live, just don't do it in Dallas. There is a city code that requires a person to provide ID when asked by law enforcement. For no reason. No probable cause. Just because it is the law. I took many to jail for Failure to Provide ID. Of course, when I got them there and determined who they really were through fingerprints, they all had warrants out for their arrest. Gosh, could that be why they, and others, refuse to provide ID?

Let's see this Dallas city ordinance.

 

[santa]

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?

Not to inject religion but an implant sounds kind of like the 'mark of the beast' in the Bible. Ive said for years IF YOU DONT EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS YOU WILL USE THEM. The sad thing is that the microchip technology can be used or adapted to humans. Imagine what Hitler would have done with it, or future or current US leades.

 

[Firefighterchen]

That may work where you live, just don't do it in Dallas. There is a city code that requires a person to provide ID when asked by law enforcement. For no reason. No probable cause. Just because it is the law. I took many to jail for Failure to Provide ID. Of course, when I got them there and determined who they really were through fingerprints, they all had warrants out for their arrest. Gosh, could that be why they, and others, refuse to provide ID?

That's why I am glad I never moved to Texas. I know some people wouldn't mind living in Texas...I don't think I would enjoy it one bit. No open carry, and if you can provide the citation, you have to provide ID...ya not my thing. WA has it's own problems, but at least I can openly carry my firearm without being detained and questioned and assumed a felon immediately. I don't know why you were ID'ing them in the first place, and since OC is illegal in Texas it couldn't be for that, I do not see how it is relevant to the topic at hand. Did you force someone to ID themselves because they were using a cell phone in a park? And if they refused did you arrest them? Are those the kind of people you were arresting?

 

[Bikenut]

I agree. When you are driving and stopped by a cop he asks for your drivers license, do you give it to him? If a person submits to the cop in all other situations why not when you are carrying? I really do not understand the macho attitude of "I'm standing up for my rights". By causing drama I feel that "Macho Man" is showing that he is not grown up nor has the proper temperate to be carrying a loaded firearm.

It is discussions such as this that we all can learn something. If we keep our opinions to ourselves then we do not advance the cause. If anyone is bored by this discussion then they do not have to read them.

We have not become a socialist country YET. Until that happens then we each can have and state our opinion.

Edited because I completely misunderstood your post the first time around. If you read my first reply I apologize.

However... let me add that the person standing up for his/her rights isn't being a "macho man" but is doing what every patriot should be doing... not allowing the government to turn the U.S. of A. into a government controlled socialist country.

And the first step in controlling "we the people" is to instill the fear of "them the government".. and the cops ARE the "government's" enforcement agency.

We need to remember that it was those who fought to boot out King George's rule.. you know.. folks who stood up for their rights even before those rights were written down... that brought about a country where "we the people's" rights are guaranteed from "them the government's" control.

But a just a few decades of people being willing to give up their rights when someone in authority says so (even if saying so is illegal) is why this country has gone so far down the tubes.

You, and many others, say... just obey because it is easier... but those who understand what is at stake, and ALL of our rights are at stake, are saying... stop bending over just because it is easier or less hassle and actually stand UP to stop the loss of our rights. If you don't stand up now to stop it ... it will surely continue until standing up will be entirely too late and the U. S. will resemble... Venesuala, or Libya, or Syria.

For those who think I might be overstating things? Well.. then go get another beer and turn on the game.....

 

[Bikenut]

First, I'd like to say that I TOTALLY understand and agree with the fact that we all have rights and don't want to lose them. However, I keep seeing many posts about how an officer confronts someone open carrying and the person refuses to cooperate. I saw another post about a hotel asking someone to show their CCW permit. Again, I TOTALLY understand that you don't have to and they have no legal grounds, but why wouldn't you cooperate and just get it over with? I'm really curious as to why it's such a big deal to so many of you not to cooperate. It's not like they're going to take your rights away from you and you're not incriminating yourself in any way by cooperating. 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?

No you don't understand, TOTALLY or partially, that we have rights and don't want to lose them since you are willing to trade your rights for the convenience, because it's "easier", of not actually standing up for your rights.

If you TOTALLY, agree we all have rights and don't want to lose them why are you having a problem understanding when some folks actually stand UP for those rights?

You do understand that if everyone just let's their rights go... no one ever actually stands up and draws a line in the sand... then none of us will have any rights. All we will have is demands from the government (cops ARE part of the government!) and we damn well better........... OBEY!

 

[Deserteagle]

Deserteagle: sorry, thought a forum was to discuss things. I didn't know posing a question with 2 different viewpoints was forbidden. I won't do that anymore..

Perhaps I was too harsh. What I meant is, many of us on this forum are sick of the same old debates. If you really are interested in discussing it, look at the many threads where this has been discussed already.

Sometimes it's more appropriate to see if there is already a thread about a certain topic before assuming there is not, and then starting a new one anyway.

 

[NavyLCDR]

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.

And what you cannot comprehend is that a person engaging in perfectly legal behavior (IE: openly carrying a firearm in states where open carry is legal or driving on a public highway, obeying all laws and rules of the road) in NO way, shape or form constitutes "appropriate circumstances" for a law enforcement officer to inspect pertinent legal documents.

 

[Bikenut]

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.

If cowardly folks don't grow balls (and I used those words on purpose since.... as an avid open carrier who "parades" the right to bear arms every day everywhere I go including into local municipal council meetings to require illegal gun ban ordinances be repealed to comply with State law... you just called me an arsehole) and stand up for their rights then it is their own damn fault when they lose them.

What is disgusting is to have other gun owners/carriers complain about those who are standing up.... because they are afraid that the mere act of standing up will result in losing the ability to exercise their rights... never understanding that if you are to scared to do it.... you already lost it.

And right here is a very good place to add this reminder...

Your freaking "license to carry" your precious "permit" is NOT the right to bear arms. I has no connection what so ever to the actual right to bear arms! What it really is... is the exact heinous infringement upon the right to bear arms called...

government control of who is given, and who is denied, permission! to bear an arm in a concealed manner.

Got that? A carry permit is NOT the right to bear arms!!!! It actually is what is referred to in "shall not be infringed" because it is the government who gets to say who can, and who can't, bear an arm in a concealed manner.

And there is no connection between being required to show a driver's license when stopped while driving... and there being no requirement (in some States a person can legally open carry in a "sterile" manner... having absolutely no ID on their person) to show ID when questioned about legally openly carrying in a place and manner that is legal for open carry.

Presenting a driver's license if stopped while driving is legally required. Showing ID for engaging in the legal activity of open carry (in some States) is NOT required.

If it is not required... why would anyone interested in "rights" toady up and show their ID? Afraid to stand up perhaps?

 

[NavyLCDR]

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.

No. What I have a problem with is someone who is rolling over belly up at the sight of a law enforcement officer telling the rest of us that is the right thing to do. I stay in the military having full knowledge of the rights I am giving up to do so. To remain in the military, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC. I cannot stand idly and silently by and allow people to post such drivel that it is in the best interest of "public safety" to present your "papers, please" to a law enforcement officer for no other reason than they are asking for it because they have heartburn over the perfectly legal behavior the detained subject happens to be engaged in at the time of the illegal detainment - and to use the excuse that they simply want to get on with their day and avoid "drama" which is created by the LEO is a personal choice that I refuse to recommend as a preferred course of action.

 

[Deanimator]

That may work where you live, just don't do it in Dallas. There is a city code that requires a person to provide ID when asked by law enforcement. For no reason. No probable cause. Just because it is the law. I took many to jail for Failure to Provide ID. Of course, when I got them there and determined who they really were through fingerprints, they all had warrants out for their arrest. Gosh, could that be why they, and others, refuse to provide ID?

So then you're saying that you're required to HAVE ID?

No such requirement exists in Ohio, apart from driving or carrying a concealed firearm.

Who PAYS for that ID? What if you can't afford one?

 

[The_Outlaw]

If cowardly folks don't grow balls (and I used those words on purpose since.... as an avid open carrier who "parades" the right to bear arms every day everywhere I go including into local municipal council meetings to require illegal gun ban ordinances be repealed to comply with State law... you just called me an arsehole) and stand up for their rights then it is their own damn fault when they lose them.

What is disgusting is to have other gun owners/carriers complain about those who are standing up.... because they are afraid that the mere act of standing up will result in losing the ability to exercise their rights... never understanding that if you are to scared to do it.... you already lost it.

And right here is a very good place to add this reminder...

Your freaking "license to carry" your precious "permit" is NOT the right to bear arms. I has no connection what so ever to the actual right to bear arms! What it really is... is the exact heinous infringement upon the right to bear arms called...

government control of who is given, and who is denied, permission! to bear an arm in a concealed manner.

Got that? A carry permit is NOT the right to bear arms!!!! It actually is what is referred to in "shall not be infringed" because it is the government who gets to say who can, and who can't, bear an arm in a concealed manner.

And there is no connection between being required to show a driver's license when stopped while driving... and there being no requirement (in some States a person can legally open carry in a "sterile" manner... having absolutely no ID on their person) to show ID when questioned about legally openly carrying in a place and manner that is legal for open carry.

Presenting a driver's license if stopped while driving is legally required. Showing ID for engaging in the legal activity of open carry (in some States) is NOT required.

If it is not required... why would anyone interested in "rights" toady up and show their ID? Afraid to stand up perhaps?

While I certainly agree with the majority of your post, I personally choose to concealed carry because I don't need nor do I want to deal with the legal hassle of explaining myself to a bunch of keystone cops.

As far as being ''afraid to stand up'' etc...One should choose their battles wisely imho.

 

[Bikenut]

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?

And maybe if some folks would come out of their cold beer in the 'fridge and Sunday afternoon football coma they would realize that having our rights... ALL of our rights.. slowly whittled away while they got drunk and cheered some million dollar a year bozo on tv.... were being legislated out of existence.

And it is the few who have the gumption to put down the beer, turn off the TV, and fight to keep rights that are being derided, ridiculed, demeaned, and insulted by those who just want to go though life bending over so they won't be hassled and have the illusion of safety. And it is those few who rock the boat that are called "massive gluteus maximus" by those who are too afraid to actually stand up for their rights.

Don't know the laws and regulations? It's no one's fault but your own so put the beer down, get off your butt, and do some research.

 

[SGB]

While I certainly agree with the majority of your post, I personally choose to concealed carry because I don't need nor do I want to deal with the legal hassle of explaining myself to a bunch of keystone cops.

As far as being ''afraid to stand up'' etc...One should choose their battles wisely imho.

And of course Exercising a Constitutionally protected right is a battle that no one should ever decide to take on .............. is that what you're saying?

 

[Bikenut]

While I certainly agree with the majority of your post, I personally choose to concealed carry because I don't need nor do I want to deal with the legal hassle of explaining myself to a bunch of keystone cops.

As far as being ''afraid to stand up'' etc...One should choose their battles wisely imho.

Well Sir... the battle that you would consider "unwise" due to your own personal criteria just may be the battle that someone else considers essential to engage in.. and has the ability to do so.

But if folks ridicule, insult, and demean others for engaging in battles they themselves wouldn't get into..... then they are expecting other people to live according to their own values and judgements.

I'll not judge you, or anyone, for not jumping into a battle... but I'll surely jump all over you for ridiculing or insulting me for jumping into that battle because...

Someone needs to fight. Otherwise.. all is lost. And your opinion of the worthiness of the battle is only valid to.... you.

 

[GlockOclock]

First, I'd like to say that I TOTALLY understand and agree with the fact that we all have rights and don't want to lose them. However, I keep seeing many posts about how an officer confronts someone open carrying and the person refuses to cooperate. I saw another post about a hotel asking someone to show their CCW permit. Again, I TOTALLY understand that you don't have to and they have no legal grounds, but why wouldn't you cooperate and just get it over with? I'm really curious as to why it's such a big deal to so many of you not to cooperate. It's not like they're going to take your rights away from you and you're not incriminating yourself in any way by cooperating. 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?

Let me take this to it's logical extreme. If/when I'm pulled over for a traffic citation let's say. The officer might say "mind if I take a look in your trunk?" It's easier if I say "Sure, why not". He finds nothing and I'm on my way.

On the other hand, I am under no obligation to consent to a search. The officer and society in general seem to believe that consenting is the way to go. After all "what do you have to hide?" The more people that exercise their rights in these circumstances, the more 'normal' it becomes to do so and conversely, the more we comply the more rights will be lost eventually.

A right not used will fade away in time. It's "normal" to let a cop paw through your property for the sake of expedience. I believe this is wrong, but we all make our choices.

What do you have to hide citizen?

 

[Firefighterchen]

Let me take this to it's logical extreme. If/when I'm pulled over for a traffic citation let's say. The officer might say "mind if I take a look in your trunk?" It's easier if I say "Sure, why not". He finds nothing and I'm on my way.

On the other hand, I am under no obligation to consent to a search. The officer and society in general seem to believe that consenting is the way to go. After all "what do you have to hide?" The more people that exercise their rights in these circumstances, the more 'normal' it becomes to do so and conversely, the more we comply the more rights will be lost eventually.

A right not used will fade away in time. It's "normal" to let a cop paw through your property for the sake of expedience. I believe this is wrong, but we all make our choices.

What do you have to hide citizen?

You are completely right, it is wrong, but those that just want to take the "easy path" don't mind letting it go unhindered. Shoot they go so far as to ridicule those who actually want to make it right again. It would be really nice when it's normal that police obey the Constitution and the laws, instead of it being normal that they can ID anyone for any reason and search anywhere for anything....

 

[LittleCapPistol]

This is a simple conditioning tactic. One of the best examples of conditioning is when was the last time you went to a restaurant, Walmart or Kroger even though you are old and wrinkled, obviously much, much over 21 (even over 50 looking) and the teenage waitress or checkout person "asks you for your ID" to buy a beer. Now how many times do you or some one you see buying beer just whip out that drivers license and submit to that corporate request. The Government and the Corporations are working together to condition Americans to "Show Their Papers" just as the Natzi's did and you know where that ended up. I personally do not "show my papers" to anyone. You can ask for a manager at any of these places and the Manager will say "It's The Law" we see your ID to buy beer, BullS%$$#. You show everyone your not going to "show your papers" for no reason when asked. Heck I ask them to see their ID to make sure they are old enough to sell my old butt a beer. If an officer of the law wants to see your papers for no obvious reason, all you have to do is ask "Am I Free to Go" or "Are You Detaining Me" If they say they are detaining you then they must inform you of the law you have broken and putting you in hand cuffs. Just remember the 2nd amendment is not the only amendment. There are 27 amendments total and the first ten are the most important ones.

 

[Seeya]

kwiby you truely do not understand that you a People/Citizen of the Republic of the United States of America first a citizen of the state second. You totalty ignored the supramacy clause and SCOUTUS Opinions. So it is you have no knowledge of common law. The difference between UCC and Common Law, look it up. I have won my cases in court using what I presented on here. Case's were dismissed and N/A. If you give up one right under the mistaken belief that it dosn't effect another you are an endentured servant of your elected servants. The go along get along attitude is what sent so many to the "Gas Chamber" in Germany. You have proven to me that you are a Sheep.