You must watch this video

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I always try to treat police officers like they are going to be like the officer in the above video. And they usually are."

May your mindset be contagious amongst P2A supporters!

LD45
 
If open carry is legal, then it does not matter if someone called the police about a guy carrying a gun.
Why should an officer respond to investigate perfectly legal behavior?

Do you think that the police should stop a pedestrian if someone called and reported to the police "Hey, there's a guy walking around my neighborhood and he has a cellphone on his side. I want you guys to come and check him out to make sure he's not some kind of criminal"?

Again, the police in this nation are not supposed to stop law-abiding citizens, who appear to be breaking no laws, for no good reason.
This violates our Constitutional Right against unwarranted search and seizure.

"Nervous Nellies and Little Old Ladies" do have rights, just as you said. But they do not have a Constitutional Right to have another person investigated by the police simply because they don't like the legal behavior of that person.

Easy

The behavior of carrying a firearm in public is covered in section 12031 of the California penal code. Specifically, carrying a loaded firearm is illegal, and often a felony. Regarding the fact that the pedestrian was legally carrying an unloaded firearm, that scenario is addressed in subsection (e) of PC12031

PC12031(e) said:
(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

Agree with the law or not, the fact is that as long as it is on the books, the cop was simply doing his job, enforcing existing California law and doing so in a courteous and professional manner.

As far as the Constitutionality of the law, until such time as the United States Supreme Court deems it un-Constitutional, the law stands as legal statute. As such, anyone in California choosing to exercise his or her legal right to openly carry an unloaded firearm in public, should expect to be questioned legally by any law enforcement personnel encountered.
 
Agree with the law or not, the fact is that as long as it is on the books, the cop was simply doing his job, enforcing existing California law and doing so in a courteous and professional manner.
You're right....since this is California law then, yes, the officer was just doing his job....

Except....

when the officer asked for some ID after he had already verified that the handgun was empty and that the pedestrian was in fact complying with California law.
 
You're right....since this is California law then, yes, the officer was just doing his job....

Except....

when the officer asked for some ID after he had already verified that the handgun was empty and that the pedestrian was in fact complying with California law.
It's pretty standard for LEOs to obtain ID, regardless of the reason for the stop - no use letting criminals slip under the radar when it's so easy to run a check for warrants and previous violations.

And asking for ID before confirming the weapon is empty would have been a pretty dumb move. Addressing a weapon is the first priority for any LEO who wants to go home to his family at the end of a shift.
 
I just feel people go to far in some cases to "flex their rights" not just the second amendment the 1st amendment as well. Some times I feel common sense fails to be used in situations such as this. I think the officer did what he needed to do as far as being professional and keeping himself alive.
 
I just feel people go to far in some cases to "flex their rights"

Well said. It's kind of like "I believe in my constitutional rights, no matter how many laws I have to break to get it".:D

LD45
 
when the officer asked for some ID after he had already verified that the handgun was empty and that the pedestrian was in fact complying with California law.

just so you know.....an officer can ASK for anything........that doesnt mean you are legally obligated to do it.

its actually a pretty common 'trick' for something they cant force you to do....theyll simply phrase it in the form of a question......and most people fall for it.

"would you mind if i see some ID?"
"do you have anything in your car/ bag/ person i should know about?"
"i am going to search your car/ bag/ person.......if you dont mind"
"do you know how fast you were going?"
 
It's pretty standard for LEOs to obtain ID, regardless of the reason for the stop - no use letting criminals slip under the radar when it's so easy to run a check for warrants and previous violations.
Yes, it is rather standard...even if it violates our Constitutional Rights.
Whenever a police officer asks you for your ID you had better get very cautious.
And only an idiot would believe the old "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" nonsense....there are plenty of innocent men doing time in prison right now.


its actually a pretty common 'trick' for something they cant force you to do....theyll simply phrase it in the form of a question......and most people fall for it.
Yep. Asking for ID after he had already established the fact that no laws were being broken was nothing more than fishing for a reason to arrest the pedestrian.
 
Well first of all, the Officer had his priorities straight confirming the weapon was unloaded first, then asking for ID. I would remind all of you that even in a legal open carry situation, a felon may not possess a weapon, so the officer had the right to ID the young man. There are lots of things to worry and be paranoid about, but a hard working, polite, honest cop isn't one of them.:rolleyes:

LD45
 
Thanks ursus100 for the info about what the law actualy says for this jurisdiction. I'm surprised that the law doesn't require you to also carry ID with you while open carrying. IMHO , the LEO was very nice
 
You're right....since this is California law then, yes, the officer was just doing his job....

Except....

when the officer asked for some ID after he had already verified that the handgun was empty and that the pedestrian was in fact complying with California law.

It's pretty standard for LEOs to obtain ID, regardless of the reason for the stop - no use letting criminals slip under the radar when it's so easy to run a check for warrants and previous violations.

Yes, it is rather standard...even if it violates our Constitutional Rights.

I've read the Constitution, but by no means do I have it memorized nor do I consider myself an expert on it. Over the years a very few occasion, I've been asked by an LEO to produce an ID, but I never did I feel as though the LEO's asking for it was particularly violating my constitutional rights. Do you know of a a supreme Court ruling that can be cited to support your position that an LEO simlpy askng for an ID during a legitimate contact constitutes a 4th amendment violation?
 
Well first of all, the Officer had his priorities straight confirming the weapon was unloaded first, then asking for ID. I would remind all of you that even in a legal open carry situation, a felon may not possess a weapon, so the officer had the right to ID the young man. There are lots of things to worry and be paranoid about, but a hard working, polite, honest cop isn't one of them.

yes, but the officer had no reason to believe this man was a felon.
 
"yes, but the officer had no reason to believe this man was a felon."

I'm curious to know, in the absence of a large tattoo or clothing labeled "FELON", do they look, smell or behave in a manor that identifies them as a "felon"? :D

In a world where you must produce an ID to cash a check, use a credit card, open a bank account, register for college classes, vote, or a hundred other daily events, a Police Officer asking for ID from a suspicious person isn't out of the question.;)

LD45
 
I'm curious to know, in the absence of a large tattoo or clothing labeled "FELON", do they look, smell or behave in a manor that identifies them as a "felon"?
nope, no they do not (usually).....

just because a felon is bared from owning guns.....doesnt mean you can check everyone with a gun to see if they are a felon.....

sex offenders arent allowed in schools......but that doesnt mean a police officer can check everyone in a school to see if they are a registers sex offender.

in this country, we are all presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.......so an officer cant act under the assumption that everyone he has an encounter with is a felon.

and we cant be forced to incriminate ourselves......so even if i was a gun carrying felon...... and an officer strolled up whilst i was doing nothing else illegal , and he had no reason to believe i was a doing anything illegal, and had no reason to believe i was a felon..... and asked for my ID, i am under no legal obligation to show it to him......

In a world where you must produce an ID to cash a check, use a credit card, open a bank account, register for college classes, vote, or a hundred other daily events, a Police Officer asking for ID from a suspicious person isn't out of the question.

yes, but that is all volunteered information.....which means, you dont have to give it if you dont want to.....you may not get the service you want.....but no one is FORCING you to hand over your ID

also, the lady at the bank isnt going to run my background looking for something they can arrest me with.
 
Last edited:
Officer was brilliant, open carrier was--I'm not sure. It's beyond me why anyone would open carry a handgun walking down the street when said handgun must be unloaded unless his reason is simply because he can. Kind of screams "I have an attitude, but I'm not breaking any law, so come challenge me."

Looking for cause to sue a cop, I suspect.
 
just because a felon is bared from owning guns.....doesnt mean you can check everyone with a gun to see if they are a felon.....

sex offenders arent allowed in schools......but that doesnt mean a police officer can check everyone in a school to see if they are a registers sex offender.

in this country, we are all presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.......so an officer cant act under the assumption that everyone he has an encounter with is a felon.
Exactly.
We (anyone inside the borders of the U.S.A.) have Constitutional Rights to privacy and Rights against unwarranted search and seizure.
Just because a police officer is curious, or has a hunch, or is trying to ferret out criminals, that does not mean that he has any right to request an ID when the citizen in question is committing no crime.


In a world where you must produce an ID to cash a check, use a credit card, open a bank account, register for college classes, vote, or a hundred other daily events, a Police Officer asking for ID from a suspicious person isn't out of the question.
Cashing checks, obtaining a credit card, opening a bank account, and registering for college are not Constitutional Rights....they are privledges.
Only 7 states require an ID in order to vote, and it is still a rather controversal subject.
Besides, the man carring the handgun was doing nothing suspicious, unless you think that it's suspicious for one to exercise their legal rights?



It really bothers me that so many on this forum think that it's okay for the police to request one's ID even when one is doing nothing that should warrant such a request.
 
Do you know of a a supreme Court ruling that can be cited to support your position that an LEO simlpy askng for an ID during a legitimate contact constitutes a 4th amendment violation?
Do a search of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.

The courts actually upheld the police's right to ask for ID in the Hiibel case...

Nevada has a “stop-and-identify” law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.” In turn, the law requires the person detained to “identify himself”, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer.
So, if a officer believes that you have just committed a crime, or are currently committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime, then ID can be requested.
The officer in the video clip had already established that the guy was not committing any crime.
And he had no reason to believe that the guy had just committed a crime or was about to commit a crime, so why ask for the ID?

Also remember this: there is no law in the U.S.A. that actually requires anyone in this nation to own an ID.
Yes, you will need a driver's license if you want to legally drive on public roads, and yes life is much more of a hassel if you don't have a valid picture ID, but there is no law that a citizen must have or carry any ID whatsoever.
 
Yes, it is rather standard...even if it violates our Constitutional Rights.
Whenever a police officer asks you for your ID you had better get very cautious. And only an idiot would believe the old "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" nonsense....

Asking for ID after he had already established the fact that no laws were being broken was nothing more than fishing for a reason to arrest the pedestrian.
Even if you aren't doing anything wrong, and there's absolutely no reason for a cop to stop you aside from his insatiable curiosity, an LEO asking for ID is neither violating your constitutional rights, nor is he fishing for a reason to arrest you. However, if learning who you are gives him a reason to arrest you, that's something different altogether, and nobody's fault but your own.

Consider the following:

Officer Smith stops Armando Garcia because he's carrying a weapon. Mr. Garcia demonstrates the right to carry the weapon, and Officer Smith is satisfied. Officer Smith then asks for Mr. Garcia's identification, because he wants to double-check to make sure Mr. Garcia doesn't happen to have an outstanding warrant somewhere. Did Officer Smith violate Mr. Garcia's constitutional rights?

Correct Answer: Absolutely not. In fact, Officer Smith would have been neglecting his sworn duty to protect the citizens of his city by not running the check (which required Mr. Garcia's ID). Not asking for ID is flat-out not doing your job as an officer. It sure isn't an example of a cop abusing his power or "trying to find a reason to put you in the backseat."

If you don't like it, that's one thing, and it's also too bad. That doesn't change the fact that the cop did everything right without breaking any law or violating any constitutional rights of the civilian.
 
Last edited:
Nevada has a “stop-and-identify” law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.” In turn, the law requires the person detained to “identify himself”, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer.
So, if a officer believes that you have just committed a crime, or are currently committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime, then ID can be requested.
You're misunderstanding (or intentionally misrepresenting) the word detain. An example of an officer detaining someone would be refusing to allow the suspect (you'd have to be suspected of something, as you correctly stated) to leave the premises, while the officer conducts a search or waits for backup. The suspect would almost always be handcuffed (sometimes even in the patrol car) during a detainment.

On the other hand, an officer making a routine stop, during which the officer obtains identification (a traffic stop, for example), is not an example of an officer "detaining" someone.
 
Officer Smith stops Armando Garcia because he's carrying a weapon. Mr. Garcia demonstrates the right to carry the weapon, and Officer Smith is satisfied. Officer Smith then asks for Mr. Garcia's identification, because he wants to double-check to make sure Mr. Garcia doesn't happen to have an outstanding warrant somewhere. Did Officer Smith violate Mr. Garcia's constitutional rights?

Correct Answer: Absolutely not. In fact, Officer Smith would have been neglecting his sworn duty to protect the citizens of his city by not running the check (which required Mr. Garcia's ID). Not asking for ID is flat-out not doing your job as an officer. It sure isn't an example of a cop abusing his power or "trying to find a reason to put you in the backseat."

so he wants to check if he has any warrants.....but hes not looking for a reason to arrest you.....?

well which is it.......is he looking for a reason to arrest you....or isnt he.....you cant have it both ways.
 
Checking for warrants isn't the same thing as looking for an excuse to put you in cuffs. The former is an example of proactive policing. The latter is an example of being a jerk. If you can't see the difference, I hope you've found a great career in a field totally unrelated to law enforcement, and I mean that with total respect and 100% sincerity.
 
Checking for warrants isn't the same thing as looking for an excuse to put you in cuffs. The former is an example of proactive policing. The latter is an example of being a jerk. If you can't see the difference, I hope you've found a great career in a field totally unrelated to law enforcement, and I mean that with total respect and 100% sincerity.

it doesnt matter what you call it.......the action is the same.....

he is looking for warrants......thus, he is looking for something that will cause you to end up in handcuffs.

the end result to the citizen is the same.......it really doesnt make a lick of difference what attitude the officer does it with.



quite simply.....if im just hanging out......doing nothing other than carrying my legally owned pistol.......and some cop starts asking for my ID and questioning me.......im sure as hell not going to comply with his demands any more than i legally have to....

....ive heard from a number of legal experts and LEOs that people dont know when to stop talking, and that its them volunteering more information than necessary that often caused them to end up in handcuffs...so unless its a legal requirement, im not offering it up.

an simply seeing someone carrying a gun is not grounds to believe that person is doing anything illegal.....they have no need to see my ID any more than anyone else walking down the street.
 
Last edited:
This is all irrelevant because it's impossible to demonstrate the legal right to carry a firearm without providing some sort of identification. Even in Arizona, with our outstanding pro self-defense laws (possibly America's most conservative gun laws? No permit required for CCW...), without providing ID, it would be hard to prove to a cop that you meet the following Federal requirements to own a firearm:

1) Not an illegal alien
2) Not a fugitive
3) Not mentally incompetent or defective
4) Not the subject of a restraining order
5) Not previously convicted of domestic violence
6) Not dishonorably discharged from any branch of the military
7) Minimum age 18 for legal ownership of a rifle or shotgun; minimum age 21 for legal ownership of a pistol.
8) Not a convicted felon
(http://www.nraila.org/gunlaws/federal/read.aspx?id=60)

You may meet those minimum criterion, but you sure can't prove it without proving you are who you say you are.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top