If I lawfully open carry can the police...?

[Fallguy]

It's illegal in all 50 states to drive a car on public highways without a driver's license. Is driving a car on a public highway reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed because the driver may or not be license? Yet the Supreme Court has ruled that it is against the 4th amendment for a police officer to stop an individual for the sole purpose of checking to see if they have a driver's license or not. So what's the difference in a license being required to carry a gun?

If a police officer legally detains you while you are carrying a gun, they certainly can require you to show the required license for that gun. But there has to be a legal reason to detain you to begin with. Simply performing an action that is legal, with a license, is no indication of a crime being committed, and; therefore, no basis for a lawful detention - just as the simple act of driving a car on a public highway is no basis for a lawful detention.

Well again I am only talking about TN.

But it TN while a license is required to drive on the road, it is not illegal to drive in general. Unlike carrying a firearm is illegal in general.

The act of driving is not illegal on its own, only driving without a license.
The act of carrying a firearm is illegal, period, permit or not, openly or not. Having a permit is just a defense to that law.

So that is the difference there.

Or your kidnapping comparrison. Yes, kidnapping is illegal, but simply having kids close to you is not. Now if also just having kids about you was illegal, then a LEO would detain you to make sure they are yours.

Don't get me wrong, in those states where open carry is legal without a permit, then I completely agree that simply openly carrying a firearm is not enough PC for a detention. Or in those 3 states were carry period is not illegal then any type of carry is not enough. It's just that it is not the same in every state.

 

[PaulIcemanMc]

Driver's license and CCP

I keep seeing people comparing "Driving license" and "Conceal Carry Permit".
The way I understand it, a driving license is a privlege and carrying a weapon for self defense is a "right". Now doing so openly is where the 2nd Amendment comes in. Carrying concealed is where the state comes in with licensing. Am I seeing something askew or am I correct in my analogies?

 

[DannyBear71]

I realize this is a 'concealed carry' encounter, but I think it will illustrate a few things. I was recently in Jackson, TN. While getting coffee I dropped a lid and bent over to pick it up. As I did a Sheriff's deputy also getting coffee noticed a bulg in my clothing from the pistol grip. Yes, I know. It was a stupid thing to do, but I wasn't thinking. I should have kneeled down.

Anyways I paid for my coffee and walked outside. The officer followed me. Outside he stopped me and asked me, "Are you carrying a gun?"

Now, is carrying concealed in Tennessee without a permit a crime? Yes, so when the officer saw what 'from his experience' was a pistol grip poking through my shirt he had 'reasonable suspicion' to believe I was armed and might be committing a crime. He would have been within his authority to 'pat' me down for weapons. Though, he ultimately chose not to.

"Yes, Officer I have a Missouri CCW permit," was my response. I produced the permit on his request. He read it. Handed it back, and we spent about 10 minutes talking guns before he went back inside for his coffee.

If I'd have been 'lawfully' carrying a firearm openly he'd have had no reason to stop me at all. To conduct a 'Terry stop' would have required more information. An observed act which 'in his experience' suggested criminal activity. That act can be anything, but he must convince a judge that the observed activity could be reasonably construde as criminal activity.

The two men stopped in Terry v Ohio were merely walking in front of a business (jewelry store if I remember correctly). But it was their repeated back and forth walk, looks into the store, and consultations at the end of the building that led him to believe they were casing the store for a robbery. When his 'pat-down' resulted in the discovery of several weapons unlawfully concealed they were arrested. The trial judge and later the US Supreme Court agreed that his suspicion was reasonable and the 'pat-down' was constitutional.

 

[Fallguy]

I keep seeing people comparing "Driving license" and "Conceal Carry Permit".
The way I understand it, a driving license is a privlege and carrying a weapon for self defense is a "right". Now doing so openly is where the 2nd Amendment comes in. Carrying concealed is where the state comes in with licensing. Am I seeing something askew or am I correct in my analogies?

You should be correct, but in many states the law either doesn't allow Open Carry without a permit or in some Open Carry at all.

 

[Fallguy]

If I'd have been 'lawfully' carrying a firearm openly he'd have had no reason to stop me at all. To conduct a 'Terry stop' would have required more information. An observed act which 'in his experience' suggested criminal activity. That act can be anything, but he must convince a judge that the observed activity could be reasonably construde as criminal activity.

Why do you think if you had been openly carrying he wouldn't have had a reason to stop you? It is unlawful to open carry in TN without a permit.

So if he sees you, or anyone, with a firearm, as far as he knows you are violating the law (commiting a criminal activity) until you can produce a permit.

 

[DannyBear71]

Why do you think if you had been openly carrying he wouldn't have had a reason to stop you? It is unlawful to open carry in TN without a permit.

So if he sees you, or anyone, with a firearm, as far as he knows you are violating the law (commiting a criminal activity) until you can produce a permit.

My comment wasn't meant to be specific to Tennessee since I wasn't sure open carry was legal. Hence the 'lawfully' open carry statement. In my home state Missouri he wouldn't have cause in most of the state, although cities can restrict open carry.

 

[Fallguy]

My comment wasn't meant to be specific to Tennessee since I wasn't sure open carry was legal. Hence the 'lawfully' open carry statement. In my home state Missouri he wouldn't have cause in most of the state, although cities can restrict open carry.

Ah ok...

I guess one thing that is confusing me is the term "Lawful" open carry meaning Open Carry without a permit. Because in TN and some other states you can "lawfully" open carry....you just have to have a permit to do so.

 

[jg1967]

I don't know, it may be legal and all (it is here in NC) but OC is just asking for trouble IMHO. If police shows up they are pretty likely to ask to see some id and if you start arguing with them about that you may very well be right but arguing with police is ... well, things can go badly very quickly there. That's why I prefer to CC. Call me a coward if you like.

 

[Fallguy]

I don't know, it may be legal and all (it is here in NC) but OC is just asking for trouble IMHO. If police shows up they are pretty likely to ask to see some id and if you start arguing with them about that you may very well be right but arguing with police is ... well, things can go badly very quickly there. That's why I prefer to CC. Call me a coward if you like.

I think OC is legal in NC without a permit, but NC also has a law "Going armed in terror of the public" or something like that. I think that is what they charged the guy with that was too close to Obama's plane a while back. So there is that sort of "catch all" in NC.

Anyway...I don't think you're necessarily a coward, just maybe non-confrontational like I tend to be. But if you're right, you're right. However I also agree arguing..at least loudly...usually won't go over well, but that doesn't mean you can't have a discussion. Just because the police say something, do something or ask you something or to do something doesn't mean it's legal or that you have to. If you choose to voluntarily comply...that is up to you, as long as it is your choice.

But many OCers do suggest carrying some sort of recording device (know the laws of your state!! Link Removed ) in case something comes up later. That way it isn't a citizen said/officer said thing.

 

[jg1967]

I guess I don't see why some would want to refuse to show id just because they don't have to on principal grounds. From what I have read about people's encounters so far that's usually as far as it goes if the rest of the encounter goes well.

In NC just being armed openly does not constitute "going armed to the terror of the public" but it is definetly a very very loose clause and if you get into an argument with the cops I suspect it could be used against you. Essentially the thing was worded so that in theory a wild eyed loony walking around with 8 rifles in his back and 2K rounds of ammo on him could be arrested before he gets a chance to ever fire a shot.

I am nonconfrontational I figure that makes sense if I leave the house with a gun.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I guess I don't see why some would want to refuse to show id just because they don't have to on principal grounds.

Here's just a question I am going to ask... and there is nothing behind it.... just a question, that is all....

If a police officer asks me for ID, and I am not required by law to show it to him, and I simply reply to the police, "Sir, I am not required by law to show you ID, and I would rather not engage in any voluntary discussion with you on this topic," why should that change the demeanor of the police officer after that? Why should that cause the encounter to go on any different track than it would be if I simply showed him ID? I am still just as much a law abiding citizen in either case.

BTW, the reason I won't show ID to the police if I am not required to.... if Joe Schmoe citizen walked up to me on the street and asked me where I was going, what I was up to, who I was and please show him my driver's license...do you think it would be appropriate to answer those questions if Joe Schmoe, whom I have no idea is, asked me those questions and to show him my ID? Now, if I am engaged in normal everyday business in normal everyday life, lawfully carrying a firearm as I usually do, and Joe Police Officer approaches me and asks me the same things...why should I be more compelled to answer him than if Joe Schmoe asked? I don't know Joe Police Officer from Adam either. He is just as much a stranger to me as Joe Schmoe is - with one difference. If I make a mistake in answering Joe Police Officer, and he thinks he gains suspicion of criminal activity, Joe Police Officer can arrest me, whereas Joe Schmoe can't.

 

[Fallguy]

Well when I said nonconfritational....I didn't mean to say that confrontational is just yelling, arguing or the like...just meant more having to "debate/discuss" opposing view points or rather not having to.

As far as showing ID....I guess some people just want to live their lives with as minimal government interference as possible among other things.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Well when I said nonconfritational....I didn't mean to say that confrontational is just yelling, arguing or the like...just meant more having to "debate/discuss" opposing view points or rather not having to.

As far as showing ID....I guess some people just want to live their lives with as minimal government interference as possible among other things.

:biggrin: Perfect!

 

[Seeya]

It's illegal in all 50 states to drive a car on public highways without a driver's license. Is driving a car on a public highway reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed because the driver may or not be license? Yet the Supreme Court has ruled that it is against the 4th amendment for a police officer to stop an individual for the sole purpose of checking to see if they have a driver's license or not. So what's the difference in a license being required to carry a gun?

If a police officer legally detains you while you are carrying a gun, they certainly can require you to show the required license for that gun. But there has to be a legal reason to detain you to begin with. Simply performing an action that is legal, with a license, is no indication of a crime being committed, and; therefore, no basis for a lawful detention - just as the simple act of driving a car on a public highway is no basis for a lawful detention.

take some time to research this more:

The States are in violation of you civil rights by requireing you to have a drivers license for private use of the public highways:

United States Code: Title 18,31. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

Right to Travel

the only easy day was yesterday

 

[NavyLCDR]

take some time to research this more:

The States are in violation of you civil rights by requireing you to have a drivers license for private use of the public highways:

United States Code: Title 18,31. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

Right to Travel

the only easy day was yesterday

Do you have a driver's license?

 

[Seeya]

Do you have a driver's license?

do I need one? do you need one? why would you pay a tax on a right to travel? everyone thinks a license is nessasary to use the public highways, it is not. why would it matter if you or I have a license to do anything so long as we do not harm another physicaly or financially.

Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.
"Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence
of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his
conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects
himself."

U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325. "Every citizen and freeman is endowed
with certain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute is
required. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized among
all free people."

U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many
citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Shapiro v. Thompson, 398 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322
A citizens must be free to travel throughout the United States
uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation.

Hodges v. U.S., 203 US 1 (1942). "The right to the enjoyment of life and
liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of
the citizens of the several states and are not dependent upon the
Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their
existence."

Drivers License and Concealed Weapon License or truely civil rights violations as they deprive you under color of law of your rights.

I do not know you and have no obligation to inform you of what license I have or not.

I have no desire to get in a pissing match with you or anyone else as I have observed recently on this site.

some links for you and anyone else to study and conclude your own opinion.

thurther this is not the forum to disscuss drivers license's and cwl's.

perhaps someone else will compare the two on this or another site as they are entwined in many ways.

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

UNDERSTANDING JURISDICTION

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm

Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel - TLP

Your Drivers License is a Contract.

Link Removed

the only easy day was yesterday

 

[NavyLCDR]

In other words, you do.

 

[Lakeland Man]

People who claim that you don't need a drivers license are the same kind of people who say that the US Tax Code is illegal and that there is no constitutional requirement to pay income tax. Eventually they end up behind bars, complaining. Loudly!

But, they're still behind bars.

 

[Axeanda45]

People who claim that you don't need a drivers license are the same kind of people who say that the US Tax Code is illegal IT IS! and that there is no constitutional requirement to pay income tax. Eventually they end up behind bars, complaining. Loudly! Bullcrap

But, they're still behind bars.

Really?
Please back up those statements with proof....

I happen to know of only those that fought and WON their cases......... In other words, THEY ARE NOT BEHIND BARS.........


Even though I consider myself quite brave... I do NOT have big enough ba*** to do what they did...... I prefer to choose my fights a little more carefully....

 

[Lakeland Man]

Really?
Please back up those statements with proof....

I happen to know of only those that fought and WON their cases......... In other words, THEY ARE NOT BEHIND BARS.........


Even though I consider myself quite brave... I do NOT have big enough ba*** to do what they did...... I prefer to choose my fights a little more carefully....

I personally know someone who tried to claim that he had no responsibility to pay income tax and social security taxes. He lives in Northern Virginia and he is currently serving 5 years for tax avoidance (not evasion) and contempt of court. He will be released in 2012. I can give just as many examples of that as you can to the contrary. And since you didn't give ANY examples, I guess that says a lot, doesn't it.

You never answered the question. Do you have a Drivers License?