I am not jumping down anyone's throat because of what they choose to do or not do. What I am doing is calling ******** on the reasons they give to others for what they should or should not do.
You shouldn't open carry because it will bring the attention of LEO down on you.
You should show your ID because the LEO is just trying to do his job.
You should show your ID to LEO in the interest of public safety.
You should show your ID to LEO because you will look like an ass to the public if you don't.
You should show your ID to LEO because if you don't you will be a bad representation of those who carry guns.
You should show your ID to LEO out of respect.
You should show your ID to LEO to be courteous.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH......
Here's your problem:
You seem positively gleeful at the opportunity to submit to ILLEGITIMATE authority.
The Germans won at Eban Emael, Dunkirk and Sevastopol.
The Japanese won at Nanking, Singapore and Corregidor.
The Allies should have surrendered, right?
In which case he may well say "OK, hold on while I run your info through the computer..."
..And walk back a half hour later ordering you out, cuffed and the search proceeds with backup onsite as well.
What if he knew something about you already and just had to get the warrant approved OTAR?
What if, then? See how that works, logically in the other extreme.
Again, you appear EAGER to submit to ILLEGITIMATE authority.Here's your problem: You don't understand that it's a game and it's not checkers but chess.
Oh....BTW:
Link Removed
Tell me again what they'd do for an OC stop complaint.......
Fixed if for you:You shouldn't open carry because it will bring the attention of LEO down on you.
You should show your ID because the LEO is just trying to do his job.
You should show your ID to LEO in the interest of public safety.
You should show your ID to LEO because you will look like an ass to the public if you don't.
You should show your ID to LEO because if you don't you will be a bad representation of those who carry guns.
You should show your ID to LEO out of respect.
You should show your ID to LEO to be courteous.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH......
And I've got news for you pal.. the world isn't scripted according to your notions of how everyone else should be controlled by what you think others should do. You have the freedom of choice to do as your please. Please just don't expect me to do what you want by way of your willingness to submit to illegal uses of authority.I got news for you pal: The world isn't scripted according your idealized notions of rights, LEO's and gun policies or laws. You have the freedom of choice to do as you please. Please just don't do it to me by way of your bad behavior. :dirol:
Edited to Add: I cleaned it up a bit, corrected some dates. Feel free to use it and spread it around.
I can't answer for everyone. But, here is my reasoning.
1. Counting from the Norman Invasion in 1066 to our federal Bill of Rights in 1791, it took 725 years to wrest rights away from government.
Magna Carta in 1215 was a big step. As were the English Civil Wars in 1642-48 that struck a blow against the divine right of kings to rule. Another big step was the English Declaration of Rights of 1689 arising from the Glorious Revolution that kicked out James II.
In between Magna Carta and the American revolution, other rights were wrested from government one little piece at a time. Some examples:
The abolition of the Star Chamber court (tied to the 5A right againstself-incrimination);
William Penn's trial for preaching Quakerism (tied to 1A right of religion);
William Penn's jury cementing the power of a jury to judge an unjust law and the power to refuse to convict for violation of an unjust law (those jurors were literally imprisoned—“without meat, fire, and tobacco”--to coerce them to give the verdict the judges wanted, and a few were prosecuted for not giving the verdict the judges wanted);
Peter Zenger's case where writing the truth was not a defense to a law against seditiously libeling the government (tied to 1A free press rights);
The 1760's case where a lawyer named James Otis argued for hours against general warrants, a young lawyer named John Adams in the gallery who would later say the spark of revolution was born in that courtroom.
The list goes on. One right or a piece of a right at a time across centuries, nearly 800 years from Magna Carta to today. Eight. Hundred. Years.
A lot of people suffered for lack of rights. A lot of people died winning them.
Since the Founding over a million Americans have died defending our rights.
Just the cost in blood and treasure to obtain and maintain rights makes them incredibly valuable; and this is before one prices how much he values the freedom they guarantee.
An individual cop's desire for information pales into insignificance when weighed against the history and cost to get and maintain rights.
"Officer, no offense, I know you are just doing your job, but over a million Americans have died defending these rights. I'm not going to spit on their graves by waiving them."
Or, if the officer bugs me further, "Oh, I'm sorry officer. I am a patriotic American. I will cooperate with you to the full extent required by our laws." (followed by polite silence)
2. If you give identity info when not required, it can come back to bite you. It hasn't happened often; rather rare in fact, but its there. The cops may not be able to figure out something to charge you with during the encounter itself. But, afterwards they may talk to a prosecutor, or have some time to research and think, and then come up with some charge. Now they know who you are, where you live, and where to serve the warrant. It happened to an OCer in California a couple years ago. The prosecutor even got the trial judge to agree to twisting the meaning of the word "public" to make the charges stick and obtain a conviction.
In a court case called Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court, the US Supreme court even acknowledged that giving identity info might lead the cops to something more, basically turning it into a self-incrimination issue.
Regarding identifying yourself, you have to decide for yourself which is riskier, giving identity info or not.
Also, you want to make really sure about the state and local laws in your area. There are plenty of places around that require a person to identify himself to a cop, and have penalties for violating their law. Sometimes the penalties are rather stiff.
If you are unsure, you can always say, "Officer, I am providing this information against my will. I will comply, but I do not consent." (give the identity info). Then you would be safe from being charged with failing to provide identity if there happened to be an identity law in that jurisdiction. Plus, if it later turned out there was no identity law, or the cop didn't have sufficient legal grounds to demand your identity, then you would have some ammunition for a formal complaint, or another point for your lawsuit.
Link back to thread... Link Removed
Now we know what kind of behavior SGB likes. :haha:.... my
Now we know what kind of behavior SGB likes. :haha:
Translation: You have your mind made up ahead of time and choose to be an pedantic, petulant brat of a gun carrier, because regardless of the circumstances or any rational evaluation of the unique situations you may find yourself in, you're bad attitude prevails.
It's my brazen attitude that's kept me alive. It's my brazen attitude that made me successful. It's the attitude my father fought a war to prexerve for me. And it's my constitutional right to express myself with that attitude. What may constitute cause to an overzealous LEO or prosecutor may not be cause at all but rather overstepping one's boundries. I have a constitutional right to remain silent. I may have to give you my license but I don't converse, I don't explain, and I don't answer questions. I've seen far too much at this stage of my life. Did everyone forget about the guy arrested for collecting rain water?kwimby said:Regardless of the circumstances or any rational evaluation of the unique situations you may find yourself in, you're bad attitude prevails.
Fixed if for you:
You have a choice whether or not to open carry for whatever reason suits you.
You have a choice whether or not to show your ID because the LEO is just trying to do his job.
You have a choice whether or not to show your ID to LEO in the interest of public safety.
You have a choice whether or not to your ID to LEO because you will look like an ass to the public if you don't.
You have a choice whether or not to show your ID to LEO because if you don't you will be a bad representation of those who carry guns.
You have a choice whether or not to show your ID to LEO out of respect.
You have a choice whether or not to show your ID to LEO to be courteous.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.....
Translation: You have your mind made up ahead of time and choose to be an pedantic, petulant brat of a gun carrier, because regardless of the circumstances or any rational evaluation of the unique situations you may find yourself in, you're bad attitude prevails.
I got news for you pal: The world isn't scripted according your idealized notions of rights, LEO's and gun policies or laws. You have the freedom of choice to do as you please. Please just don't do it to me by way of your bad behavior. :dirol:
Yes, not everything is spelled out in the Constitution. Some rights were never mentioned. But definitions can change the laws, that is why you must read SCOTUS opinions as they become the law of the land. Narrow minded thinking is what got us where we are today, in regard to a variety of issues. Congress has the ability to define when life begins, Roe vs Wade could be overturned by just changing the definition of when life begins from birth to life begins at conception. Abortion would then be illeagal in most cases despite Roe vs Wade.
Your right. You did. Try reading the Bill of Rights, and you'll find it.
I will find that in the Bill of Rights, that it says "driving a motor vehicle" aka a CAR, is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE?
Thank god that our founding fathers were so insightful as to include motor vehicles, even though they had yet to be created, into our Bill of Rights.
Link Removed
"Shake and spray vigorously"
What in the hell does that have to do with driving is a privilege, not a right?
And here begins another 30 page debate of the same crap spewing from the same mouths on both sides of the argument.
Sometimes it's better to just have your opinion and keep it to yourself rather than start these threads
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?