I can assure you I'm a real person.
If you want to call it a
de facto requirement, I could probably rescind my opposition to that. Perhaps I used the wrong verbiage in those statements, and perhaps "de facto requirement" is a fine description, since there could be actual consequences for not having it, whether lawful or unlawful. I still doubt any
lawful consequences could come of it, but, alas, officer actions, prosecutor actions, and even court and jury actions, are unpredictable and not always in line with law. I believe it remains true that there is material difference between a "de facto requirement" and an actual legal requirement, and I believe it remains true that obfuscation of the difference is incredibly dangerous and careless.
I didn't want this to be a me vs. you back and forth, trying to prove each other wrong type scenario. I originally asked for a cite knowing one didn't exist,
and fully expected you to simply clarify that the "requirement" wasn't explicitly made in any statute, but that if one wanted to avoid trouble resulting from GC 411.205 it was advisable to have a driver license or state ID. You continued to imply that it was required by statute to have a driver license or state ID on you while carrying a handgun and that you would be in violation of the law merely by not having it. If a person really wants to avoid taking a ride, they're probably best off getting a driver license or a state ID. I'll happily agree to that point. But I will
not say that the act, in and of itself, of carrying a concealed handgun with a carry license and no driver license or state ID is illegal. It simply isn't.
