D
dstryr
Guest
Link Removed
bikerbill;356974If they have no right to ask said:Actually, they always have the right to ASK. Anybody has the right to ASK. The question is, what do they do when you refuse? Depending on state law, in most states, they have no authority or right to DEMAND. But you will never know if they will obey the limits of their authority until you say no their request (asking).
I'm seeing some excellent points in here and now see both sides of the story. The comments brought up another question for me: are you legally obligated to stop and talk to the officer in the first place? IE: you're open carrying and a cop wants to stop you and talk to you. Why not ignore him/her and just keep walking? Or, if you must stop legally, why even open your mouth to say anything at all? I truly don't know the answer to this.
Depends on state law. In most states, unless the officer is demanding that you stop, you are free to just ignore them. However, and I will get flamed for this, but I don't care, I will always at least stop for the officer. I don't consider it an intrusion of my rights to stop and ask, "Are you detaining me?" I was approached by officers in a shopping mall. They way it went down I didn't really have time to ask "are you detaining me" because they started the talking. They told me the mall was private property (true), that the mall was posted with no firearms (I found out later, true, in very small type in the middle of a code of conduct sign), but if I would just cover my gun nobody would care. I covered my gun and thanked them and that was the end of it. Unfortunately, what does suck about Washington State law was that after I concealed my gun in front of them, they would have had the legal ability to demand my CPL and I would, by law, have to produce it. Driver's license or ID, no...but CPL, yes. But they never asked for it and I didn't offer.
The officers in the mall are examples of the difference between remaining in the bounds of authority and abusing their authority. They did not do anything that any other Joe Shopper or Susie Cashier could have done. All they did was inform me of mall policy. They didn't even order me or tell me I had to cover my gun, they stated the facts and let me decide what to do.
I'm going to stick to just Michigan simply because those are the laws I'm familiar with..........I'm seeing some excellent points in here and now see both sides of the story. The comments brought up another question for me: are you legally obligated to stop and talk to the officer in the first place? IE: you're open carrying and a cop wants to stop you and talk to you. Why not ignore him/her and just keep walking? Or, if you must stop legally, why even open your mouth to say anything at all? I truly don't know the answer to this.
Again, you appear EAGER to submit to ILLEGITIMATE authority.
Please allow me to strongly suggest never taking what someone posts on the internet as being actually factual... but that it would be wise to take it upon yourself to search on the 'net for your own particular State's firearm laws and start reading for yourself.Hey guys, thanks for clearing that up for me. Very informative. I admit I have very little knowledge of the law. Now I completely understand your point of view.
Not so much. I'm eager to choose my battles and know when you're better off going one way vs. the other. A cop isn't going to stop asking for ID or a firearms license because some people refuse to produce them.
The cop can ask... a cop can ask anything they wish... that isn't what is important. What is important is for people to understand the concept that just because a cop asks doesn't mean they have to comply... unless legally required to do so.Not so much. I'm eager to choose my battles and know when you're better off going one way vs. the other. A cop isn't going to stop asking for ID or a firearms license because some people refuse to produce them.
Yet earlier in the thread you cite WA state law absent things like support for random DUI checkpoints in support of your inalienable rights. Do you not distinguish the difference between being asked to show a DL or a CCW? Do you even read this stuff you type before you hit the reply button?Unfortunately, what does suck about Washington State law was that after I concealed my gun in front of them, they would have had the legal ability to demand my CPL and I would, by law, have to produce it. Driver's license or ID, no...but CPL, yes.
Yet earlier in the thread you cite WA state law absent things like support for random DUI checkpoints in support of your inalienable rights. Do you not distinguish the difference between being asked to show a DL or a CCW? Do you even read this stuff you type before you hit the reply button?
RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.
(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.
(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.
SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.
It means that not all rights are written in simple terms or even written at all. Most rights are defined by SCOTUS thru many case's and hidden opinions that can and are applied to enforce rights that are not obivious. Keep drinking the kool-aid that the elected, keep giving you, keep on trusting that they know the law, when in fact all they want to do is controll you and me so that we remain, go along get along endentured servants under color of law. They want you to keep your mind occupied with anything that keeps you from the truth of what they are doing. Since you have been conditioned since birth to believe they know best and never question authority, you are a slave and not free.
He'll stop DEMANDING it unlawfully when the city (and the individual cops) get sued enough.Not so much. I'm eager to choose my battles and know when you're better off going one way vs. the other. A cop isn't going to stop asking for ID or a firearms license because some people refuse to produce them.
It means that not all rights are written in simple terms or even written at all. Most rights are defined by SCOTUS thru many case's and hidden opinions that can and are applied to enforce rights that are not obivious. Keep drinking the kool-aid that the elected, keep giving you, keep on trusting that they know the law, when in fact all they want to do is controll you and me so that we remain, go along get along endentured servants under color of law. They want you to keep your mind occupied with anything that keeps you from the truth of what they are doing. Since you have been conditioned since birth to believe they know best and never question authority, you are a slave and not free.
RCW 46.64.070
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test — authorized — powers additional.
To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070, officers of the Washington state patrol are hereby empowered during daylight hours and while using plainly marked state patrol vehicles to require the driver of any motor vehicle being operated on any highway of this state to stop and display his or her driver's license and/or to submit the motor vehicle being driven by such person to an inspection and test to ascertain whether such vehicle complies with the minimum equipment requirements prescribed by chapter 46.37 RCW, as now or hereafter amended. No criminal citation shall be issued for a period of ten days after giving a warning ticket pointing out the defect.
RCW 7.80.060
Person receiving notice — identification and detention.
A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.
A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction.
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?