• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Showing ID to police

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,231
Location
here nc


NC's is quite crappy...wonder why the annotation to the DL failed...

so will endure the poorly laminated PoS permit.

ipse
 

Elm Creek Smith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
204
Location
In the county.
got a OK Statute you can cite that claim?

be interested in seeing those statutes.

ipse
"TITLE 21 § 1290.8 POSSESSION OF LICENSE REQUIRED-NOTIFICATION TO POLICE OF GUN

A. Except as otherwise prohibited by law, an eligible person shall have authority to carry a concealed or unconcealed handgun in this state when the person has been issued a handgun license from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act provided the person is in compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, and the license has not expired or been subsequently suspended or revoked. A person in possession of a valid handgun license and in compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall be authorized to carry such concealed or unconcealed handgun while bow hunting or fishing.

B. <b>The person shall be required to have possession of his or her valid handgun license and a valid Oklahoma driver license or an Oklahoma State photo identification at all times when in possession of an authorized pistol. The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer</b>; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed or concealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand..."

This is from the Oklahoma SDA Book which can be found on line.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,231
Location
here nc
appreciate elm, is there any type of criteria on "...on demand of a law enforcement officer...." and any thoughts on:
1) would you be considered detained per se while the 'demand' is being met by the citizen?
2) while the referenced statute says '...shall not be disarmed..." could a citizen be disarmed based on 'officer safety' mentality?

ipse
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
truly Freedom, then the good WA state legislature put section 46.20, specifically paragraph .001 into the state's statutes as a space filler?

further, to put paragraph 46.20.005 in the statutes to explain what the penalties are for WA residents failing to meet .001 provision is quite considerate of the legislature.

ipse
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.21.010

Also if you look at the license it says, "DRIVER LICENSE," not "DRIVER'S LICENSE."

Also basis use of the English language.

We want to see your driver's license.
We want to pluck your chicken's feathers.

Unless you've hired a driver you would have nothing to show an officer.

Did everyone fail at English?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

bc.cruiser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
764
Location
Fayetteville NC
yahooo BC...ya'll got a cite 4 that there comment?

ipse
Oh, crap! It does say "valid" and "proper", rather than "government", doesn't it?

§ 14-415.11. Permit to carry concealed handgun; scope of permit.

(a) Any person who has a concealed handgun permit may carry a concealed handgun unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law. The person shall carry the permit together with valid identification whenever the person is carrying a concealed handgun, shall disclose to any law enforcement officer that the person holds a valid permit and is carrying a concealed handgun when approached or addressed by the officer, and shall display both the permit and the proper identification upon the request of a law enforcement officer.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,231
Location
here nc
Oh, crap! It does say "valid" and "proper", rather than "government", doesn't it?

§ 14-415.11. Permit to carry concealed handgun; scope of permit.

(a) Any person who has a concealed handgun permit may carry a concealed handgun unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law. The person shall carry the permit together with valid identification whenever the person is carrying a concealed handgun, shall disclose to any law enforcement officer that the person holds a valid permit and is carrying a concealed handgun when approached or addressed by the officer, and shall display both the permit and the proper identification upon the request of a law enforcement officer.
BC, Fallschirmjäger's comment was '...requires a driving license or other government identification....'

so when you stated NC, i didn't believe NC required a DL & CHP and am now perplexed what the statute actually means by 'valid' or 'proper' ?

ipse

added text....forgot to say thanks BC...
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,895
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
BC, Fallschirmjäger's comment was '...requires a driving license or other government identification....'

so when you stated NC, i didn't believe NC required a DL & CHP and am now perplexed what the statute actually means by 'valid' or 'proper' ?

ipse

added text....forgot to say thanks BC...
No case law that I can find defining proper identification.

Black's Law Dictionary
Valid. Having legal strength or force, executed with proper formalities, incapable of being rightfully overthrown or set aside. Bennett v. State, 46 Ala.App. 535, 245 So.2d 570, 572. Of binding force; legally sufficient or efficacious; authorized by law.

Proper. That which is fit, suitable, appropriate, adapted, correct. Reasonably sufficient. Peculiar; naturally or essentially belonging to a person or thing; not common; appropriate; one's own.
I showed the officer my library card, it's current and contains my name and address. I also showed the officer my proper and valid medical license. And I don't have a driver license. Why???? I have a chauffeur.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,231
Location
here nc
No case law that I can find defining proper identification.
Black's Law Dictionary
I showed the officer my library card, it's current and contains my name and address. I also showed the officer my proper and valid medical license. And I don't have a driver license. Why???? I have a chauffeur.
guess i have to get my library card...

thanks...

ipse
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
I note a difference between people who go out of their way to set up confrontations with police, and people who are just going about their day who are confronted by police.

In the first, the OC'er is the aggressor and is in the wrong, but in the second the policeman is the aggressor and is in the wrong.
Having personal experience in being in a situation where it was my word against Officer Friendly's and only the fact that I was recording the situation saved my bacon all I can say is....

Thank Freakin' Gawd there are 'drama queens' who publish things like this to "get attention". If it was kept quiet as some seem to want then very few people would be exposed to the excesses of government. You can't "bait" a cop, he's not required to do a single blessed thing when he sees legal conduct. Any officer that 'get's caught up in the drama' brought it all on his little lonesome.

Well said Falls!

I wish more people would test public servants. I support people who bait cops and others into doing bad stuff. The good cops wont take the bait.
 

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
Ahhhhh. <pleasure> One of my favorite subjects.

First, we each have to make our own decisions. While I might shake my head at the person who cooperates, I must concede that no matter how strongly I might disagree, it is his right to cooperate.

On to your questions. I cannot answer for others. I can only answer for myself.

Thousands of people paid the price in blood, smoke, and treasure across centuries to wrest from government our rights. From Magna Carta to ratification of the Bill of Rights was 576 years. Over half a millennium. Literally over a million Americans have died since then defending them. I will not spit on their graves by waiving those rights. A cop's curiosity in the here-and-now pales in comparison to centuries-long price paid to win and protect those rights.

A heavy price--very heavy, indeed--was paid to obtain our rights. I am absolutely not willing to pay that price twice, to pay it again. Especially for something government should already recognize without the people having to demand it. Rights were way, way too costly to obtain. They are precious, if no other reason than the human suffering and sacrifice it cost to obtain them. Very, very high price. Very, very high value.

Thus, I am unwilling to back up even one inch. Somebody died or suffered badly to gain that one inch. Thus, I will exercise rights to the limit. There is just no way in hell I am willing for anybody to have to go through that again.
I know I'm bringing this up from WAY back....but I gotta give it to you- this way far and away the best post I have ever seen on this forum regarding what Freedom costs, and what exercising it means.

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,163
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
Citizen said.............Thousands of people paid the price in blood, smoke, and treasure across centuries to wrest from government our rights. From Magna Carta to ratification of the Bill of Rights was 576 years. Over half a millennium. Literally over a million Americans have died since then defending them. I will not spit on their graves by waiving those rights. A cop's curiosity in the here-and-now pales in comparison to centuries-long price paid to win and protect those rights.

A heavy price--very heavy, indeed--was paid to obtain our rights. I am absolutely not willing to pay that price twice, to pay it again. Especially for something government should already recognize without the people having to demand it. Rights were way, way too costly to obtain. They are precious, if no other reason than the human suffering and sacrifice it cost to obtain them. Very, very high price. Very, very high value.

Thus, I am unwilling to back up even one inch. Somebody died or suffered badly to gain that one inch. Thus, I will exercise rights to the limit. There is just no way in hell I am willing for anybody to have to go through that again.


This is Truth!

I do not bait anyone, there is no need. Enough of the "stupid/unwilling will harass anyway. As for "backing down"? Not in my vocabulary.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,280
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
@ J_dazzle23 and MSG Laigaie

Thanks fellas.

I can't really take much credit, though. I'm really just passing along tons of history in a few sentences. The history and heroism belongs to those who paid for rights. All I add is a bit of humanity--recognizing the tremendous price they paid, and being unwilling for others to have to pay some of that price again.

Some people instinctively value rights and freedom. I was one. I didn't know exactly why--it was kinda instinctive. And, of course, without knowing the history, a fella is left valuing rights by comparing them to the benefits. This only looks at the future, the potential value of rights.

Then I got curious. Now, initially my curiosity was to be able to more effectively argue against anti-rights people. I just wanted to know more so I could smack my opponent with a better, more effective argument. So, I got a book on the history of rights. Then I got another. At first I was just fascinated by the story. But, eventually it finally dawned on me that what I was reading was the price of rights. It occurred to me that this is what it cost to win our rights. Nevermind what it cost to preserve them after they were won. The cost to win them in the first place was tremendous.

There is a very good book, very good. Origins of the 5th Amendment: the Right Against Self-Incrimination Leonard Levy 1969. Levy was a history professor. He won the Pulitzer Prize for that book. I cannot imagine the effort that went into researching all the sources. The bibliography (sources) is pages and pages. It is chock-full of history--actual historical occurrences that lead up to government recognition of the right.

Another book by Levy is Origins of the Bill of Rights. Levy walks the reader briefly through most of the Bill of Rights, touching on actual documented historical occurrences.

Want a whole new perspective on rights? Learn about the history of a right.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
... I see people refusing to show their ID to police when asked. Is there a reason for this? I know in a lot of states you don't have to, but why wouldn't you?
If I'm not taking your words out of context, allow me to rephrase... "Where is the harm in letting Officer Friendly know your address, where you eat and sleep, where your loved ones are? Why would you want to keep him from learning your address?"

Well, there's always the example of Brett Darrow and more recently, one can refer to Motecuzoma Sanchez who was recently ticketed for parking a vehicle with an expired tag on his own property after an online altercation with a Calif. police officer.
 

radio3579

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
29
Location
earth
Under Texas law, if you are carrying either open or concealed you are required to provide ID- both DL/ID and LTC to the contacting officer, officers also have the right to disarm you for the duration of the contact. Since Open Carry passed and went into effect in Jan 2016, I have not seen or heard of a single incident where a person lawfully carrying has been detained, it was pretty much a non event. The same people that have been concealed carrying for years are the ones open carrying, but I have seen maybe 3-4 people OC since January.

I have seen people with CCW licenses from out of state get jammed up for not doing so, for my part I prefer to educate them on the rules. If you are visiting here and your license is recognized you fall under the same laws as residents.

It is your right to be armed, under the current climate that requires a license in most states. I am 100% for you carrying, and wish all those that are eligible to exercise that right. Remember I did not write the laws, but I am sworn to uphold them.

It is also your responsibility to educate yourself on the laws of the states that you are visiting, know where and when you can carry to save yourself the headaches.

Until Constitutional Carry is the law of the land then there will be procedures in place both for carriers and officers to follow.

Be safe and always carry.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,231
Location
here nc
Under Texas law, if you are carrying either open or concealed you are required to provide ID- both DL/ID and LTC to the contacting officer, officers also have the right to disarm you for the duration of the contact. Since Open Carry passed and went into effect in Jan 2016, I have not seen or heard of a single incident where a person lawfully carrying has been detained, it was pretty much a non event. The same people that have been concealed carrying for years are the ones open carrying, but I have seen maybe 3-4 people OC since January.

I have seen people with CCW licenses from out of state get jammed up for not doing so, for my part I prefer to educate them on the rules. If you are visiting here and your license is recognized you fall under the same laws as residents.

It is your right to be armed, under the current climate that requires a license in most states. I am 100% for you carrying, and wish all those that are eligible to exercise that right. Remember I did not write the laws, but I am sworn to uphold them.

It is also your responsibility to educate yourself on the laws of the states that you are visiting, know where and when you can carry to save yourself the headaches.

Until Constitutional Carry is the law of the land then there will be procedures in place both for carriers and officers to follow.

Be safe and always carry.
say what??? seems you are operating under a misrepresentation of terminology...

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE.
If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s
license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license.

my reading of the statute states the nice LE demands your ID you present; yet your post seems to state as well as leads the public that a citizen is "required" to present ID...IMHO, entirely different precepts.

GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual.

sorry, but your nice LE training does not seem to adequately reflect what the legislature intended so please uphold them appropriately.

ipse
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
...It is your right to be armed, under the current climate that requires a license in most states...
Correction. It is a privilege to bear arms in Texas and 19 other states, not a right. Rights don't require licenses.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Under Texas law, if you are carrying either open or concealed you are required to provide ID- both DL/ID and LTC to the contacting officer, officers also have the right to disarm [important bits mysteriously missing] you for the duration of the contact.
GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual.

IF Officer Friendly is detaining me because he has a reasonable suspicion that criminality is afoot and I'm involved, I'm all for being disarmed. If Officer Friendly thinks he's going to disarm me while he has a little 'voluntary encounter/field interview/fishing expedition' going on, I've got news for him; the voluntary part of the encounter is now over and he can return my property and I'll go skip merrily down the road or he can make a detention in which case I haven't a single thing to say to him. His decision, of course, since he's the one with all the authority.
 
Top