|
|
|
|
|
||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CrewDog Regular Member
|
First forgive me if my first post is answered somewhere else I could not find a thread about this specific thing. Why are several of you saying to stop carring ID with you or to hide id? what are the pros to this? what are the cons? Let me say I am here because I believe in the 2a and also think CA has gone way past infringing on my rights!!! That said some of the stories are scarry here my biggest fear is becoming one of those that cannot legally own a firearm for some stupid mistake, and I would not have the funds to defend myself well. So I'm here and posting hello everyone and thanks for any helpful input on these questions. CrewDog |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
WELCOME TO OCDO!!! Not carrying ID is known as sterile carry. It defeats police identifying you if you are illegally detained, or even legally detained. First, you would want to make sure you are not required to have a permit to openly carry. Some states require that I think. And, I imagine that if they require a permit, they may require you to show both permit and ID to a police officer if he demands to see the permit. If you are carrying in a jurisdicition that does not require a license to OC, then you would have the option to not carry ID, I should think. There are court cases1 that add up to no US citizen being required to carry ID for everyday life. Airline flights, drivers license while driving, etc, being exceptions. It can be tricky, though. Some states and perhaps cities have what are called stop-and-identify statutes/ordinances. They usually add up to something along the lines of having to identify yourself (verbally) to a police officer if he has reasonable articulable suspicion about you and a crime. Some statutes include you having to give your address. The tricky part is that you never really know for sure whether the cop has genuine reasonable articulable suspicion, so, in my opinion, it is safest to verbally identify yourself to a cop if he demands it, unless you are stone dead certain the exact jurisdiction in which you are standing lacks a stop-and-identify statute/ordinance. Don't overlook that just because there is no stop-and-identify state law, it doesn't guarantee there is not a local stop-and-identify ordinance. There is another potential liability to refusing to hand over ID or sterile carrying. It involves being cited/summonsed/getting a ticket from a police officer for a misdemeanor. Some police have reported on this forum that if you refuse to provide ID when they are writing you up for an offense, they will assume you plan to skip the court appearance and arrest you instead. For myself, I do not sterile carry. Since the police have no authority to demand to see my ID, if he demands it, I'm gonna give it to him while verbally refusing consent. Then, I will have another point to add to my formal complaint. Since he's almost guaranteed to be getting a formal complaint, I don't care if he learns my name during the encounter. He's gonna learn it when the complaint arrives anyway. Another advantage of this method is that I don't have to learn or memorize which jurisdictions have stop-and-identify statutes/ordinances. If I hand over my ID, I've still complied with the law. And nobody can complain that I was uncooperative with the police. But some folks understandably do not want to afford police the opportunity to overstep their authority and carry sterile. The choice is up to you. After you check the law where you live and carry, of course. 1. Brown vs Texas, Kolendar vs Lawson, Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Circuit Court. Here is Hiibel: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html Last edited on Wed Jul 1st, 2009 05:15 am by Citizen |
|||||||||
|
ConditionThree Activist Member 
|
CrewDog wrote:
CrewDog, Welcome to OCDO. The reasons a person might want to sterile carry are pretty simple. There is no stop and ID requirement in California and mere possession of a firearm is not a crime in most cases. By not carrying ID and only offering to only identify verbally, I am placing the burden on the authorities to justify their contact with someone who both knows and follows the law. The pros; The ability to excersize liberty in the manner our forefathers intended. The cons; It's possible that in an effort to identify you, it will substantially protract any police contact you may have and result in your identity being forcibly confirmed through fingerprinting or intimidation. |
|||||||||
|
CrewDog Regular Member
|
I guess I do not understand why you would not want to let the police know who you are. If the purpose of open carry is to educate the public and exercise our rights make it a pleasant encounter for all. I'm not wanted or a felon, and if I refuse to tell them that makes it seem like I would be trying to hide something and just make things worse to me. I guess I really do not see the pros to this "sterile carrry'. My fingerprints are in the system from several of my jobs including the current one. I truly believe the feds know more about ME than I know about ME!  CrewDog |
|||||||||
|
Decoligny Regular Member 
|
CrewDog wrote: I guess I do not understand why you would not want to let the police know who you are. If the purpose of open carry is to educate the public and exercise our rights make it a pleasant encounter for all. However, when the police "demand" an identification card, and the law doesn't require it, and 99% of the people comply like sheep, the police come to expect that everyone will comply. And when everyone complies with one illegal "requirement", the police begin to add other "illegal requirements". I carry semi-sterile. I have one I.D. Card that was issued by the VA which only has my picture and my name on it. No social security number, no state issued ID number, no Federal issued ID number. It is however a valid government issued I.D. Card. I still refuse to provide an I.D. Card if demanded, but if the get to the point of illegally arresting me, it might just speed up the release process so that I can get home sooner and download my digital voice recorder. |
|||||||||
|
bad_ace Regular Member 
|
CrewDog wrote:I guess I do not understand why you would not want to let the police know who you are. ~ Welcome to OCDO. This is exactly the type of conditioning I was given. "If you have nothing to hide, just let them check" my Dad's advice for traffic stops when I started driving. I did that for a while, but as a young white kid in Tucson I found myself getting pulled over at least once a week. Mostly because I had friends in rough neighborhoods, so a cop was certain I was either there to score some drugs for myself or get a larger load to take back to the white suburbs. When the officer realized his hunch was wrong the probing started, they would keep me for as long as an hour on the roadside digging through my car/backpack. At this point any little thing they discovered (after getting me to waive my 4th amendment rights) was trumped up to justify the time spent on the stop. And when I say little things I mean one of the two bulbs burnt out in the third tail light or measuring the hight of the car, measuring tire tread with a penny, etc. Over time (and a family friend who was a cop) I learned to exercise my right to not be (illegally) searched by not waiving my rights (4th, 5th, etc.). My stops became shorter and I got less tickets. To my parents this equated to "getting into less trouble", I call it avoiding harassment. To understand that you've been conditioned to comply with any request given by LE (law enforcement) I'm going to ask you to expand what you're willing to comply with (rhetorical question). If you have "nothing to hide" do you mind if they knock on you door at a home and ask to just look around? Do you mind if they track your cars movement? You're not doing anything illegal, so no big deal if they know you went to the grocery store Thursday at 21:58. You're not conversing with enemies of the state or terrorists online right? So you wouldn't mind them knowing where you go online. The list goes on and at some point you'll say "NO. I'm not doing that." This point is different for each person. The next time you have an encounter with a LEO just give it try, assert your right to not by stopped and identified (excluding driving) if you don't like it or you dont like how pissed the officer gets, no big deal you can quickly on the spot give up your right and hand over ID.  For me, I just want to be left alone, so when an officer or deputy wrongly applies PC 148.9 saying "You have to by California law carry ID and present it to an officer upon request" I think in the back of my head "No. you're pissed that you cant arrest me solely on the fact that I'm armed in public so you want to A: keep me here as long as you like because I'll want the ID you have pinned between your shirt pocket and fancy handcuff key back, and B: you want to run me for warrants in hopes that you can arrest me for something today to assert you "authority". But then I say aloud "I believe you're wrong and I refuse to give you ID, IF you had reasonable suspicion or proof that I've committed a crime you wouldn't be asking, you'd have me handcuffed, taking to the station and then ID'd" Followed by "Thanks for the talk officers, I'd like to go about my lawful business now. Am I free to go.?" { I just read over my post for spelling and if there is any angst, it's not directed at you }Last edited on Wed Jul 1st, 2009 06:58 pm by bad_ace |
|||||||||
|
MudCamper Regular Member 
|
bad_ace wrote: Welcome to OCDO. bad_ace, that is really well articulated. Although normally I am one to advocate always exercising all of ones rights, I have had my doubts sometimes about the ID issue while Open Carrying, but you've convinced me otherwise. |
|||||||||
|
pullnshoot25 Regular Member 
|
Very good post bad_ace. Crewdog, allow me to respond in my semi-blunt fashion... Cops are agents of the state and do not give a rat's ass about you. Their primary function is to arrest and every time they talk to you it is to try and find something amiss so that you can be arrested. The greatest threat to your liberty comes not from some craphole in Afghanistan, it comes from your local "Officer McFriendly." As a citizen, your primary goal in interacting with a police officer is to NOT be arrested. By not giving them any ammunition, you eliminate a great number of those possibilities. I posted videos on this subject. Feel free to check them out. http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2009/06/oc-videos.html |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
CrewDog wrote: I guess I do not understand why you would not want to let the police know who you are. If the purpose of open carry is to educate the public and exercise our rights make it a pleasant encounter for all. There are some really good posts above. I'd like to chip in a few points. Imagine for a moment if you considered rights three times as important as you do now. Really do this. Don't actually adopt the idea. Just imagine that you did. Would this new level of importance affect your view of violations by police? Imagine if you considered rights ten times as important as you do now. Personally, having had a good bit of time to look this over, I consider rights essential. Not just feel-good. Not just patriotic. Indispensably essential. Next point. Every time a cop demands to see ID during a Terry Stop, he is violating a fundamental principle of this democratic republic. In this democratic republic the government only has the power delegated to it by the people. The people have not delegated to police the authority to demand ID during a Terry Stop. I'm not even sure the people could delegate that authority. As a side note, by going along with an ID document demand, you are to a certain extent validating and confirming the LEO's usurpation of undelegated authority. This is not to say that at any given time, it might be the best tactical option and well worth compliance. But, this different from giving up ID most of the time or pre-planning to give ID. Police demanding to see ID has nothing to do with guns. Its not like cops suddenly developed an appetite to see ID just since open carry got started. If an OCer is nice and complies with an ID demand, police are not going to quit unlawfully demanding ID from other people they stop. We know it it is without support of law. We bear at least some small responsibility to do something about it. |
|||||||||
|
Theseus Founder's Club Member 
|
I would point out that had I sterile carried I would not be facing trial and possible conviction right now. |
|||||||||
|
CrewDog Regular Member
|
Ok Ace I understand better now I do believe in asserting my rights as you say. I have never planned on ever agreeing to any search of my house, belongings, or whatever. I guess I have been conditioned after 20 years of dealing in the military circles. I am used to what the cops say you do, because your commander can do pretty much whatever he wants to you.(guilty or not) Decoligny was that VA=Veterans administration? I have one of those somewhere. So I am going to have to admit that all of you make great points. However by far the best point has been made by Theseus!!! Point taken to heart for sure! Theseus thank you for sharing. CrewDog |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Theseus wrote: I would point out that had I sterile carried I would not be facing trial and possible conviction right now. Why do you say this - i do not understand hyour fixation on your ID in your school zone case. |
|||||||||
|
ConditionThree Activist Member
|
Mike wrote: Theseus wrote:I would point out that had I sterile carried I would not be facing trial and possible conviction right now. If he was not positively identified at the time of the police contact, it may have been less likely that authorities would have sought charges after they researched 626.9 and erronously applied it to Theseus. |
|||||||||
|
nukechaser Regular Member 
|
ConditionThree wrote:Mike wrote:Theseus wrote:I would point out that had I sterile carried I would not be facing trial and possible conviction right now. +1! |
|||||||||
|
Theseus Founder's Club Member
|
nukechaser wrote: ConditionThree wrote: Contrary to what some think, I was never arrested. I was merely detained and searched while the police went on a fishing expedition to find me guilty of something. During this illegal detention they removed my firearm, took the wallet out of my pocket and identified me. They ran a serial check on the firearm, a wants and warrants check on me. They never arrested me and sent me on my way. If they had not illegally obtained my ID (no probable cause and no consent) they would not have known who I was or where to find me. They would have had to conduct a search to find me. It is unlikely they would have ever done so. The ID was "fruit of the poisonous tree" and as well so is the charge. Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:26 pm by Theseus |
|||||||||
|
Phssthpok Regular Member
|
Theseus wrote:
This right here, IMHO, shoots the Hiible ruling all to hell. One has no way of knowing FOR CERTAIN if surrendering one's ID may result in criminal charges at a later date, Therefore, per the fifth amendment, one should legally be able to REFUSE to ID oneself at any time and under any circumstances. Of course TPTB would see it differently... |
|||||||||
|
MudCamper Regular Member
|
Theseus wrote: nukechaser wrote:ConditionThree wrote: This right here is a damn good reason to leave one's ID at home. Not only that but it makes me consider only carrying handguns that I bought in the 80's that aren't in the DOJ database. |
|||||||||
|
Theseus Founder's Club Member
|
MudCamper wroteThis right here is a damn good reason to leave one's ID at home. Not only that but it makes me consider only carrying handguns that I bought in the 80's that aren't in the DOJ database. The problem here is that if they do run the serials and it is not in your name they confiscate it. Sure there is no law that says you have to be registered, but if you aren't they can confiscate it according to the law. Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:57 pm by Theseus |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
Phssthpok wrote: Theseus wrote: +10 I always recommend reading the dissents in court cases, as well as the opinions. Even though they are not binding, they can be very enlightening. Here is a quote from one of the dissents in Hiibel: The Court [in writing the main opinion, not this dissent] reasons that we should not assume that the disclosure of petitioner’s name would be used to incriminate him or that it would furnish a link in a chain of evidence needed to prosecute him. Ante, at 12—13. But why else would an officer ask for it? Stevens, J., Dissenting. (emphasis added) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZD.html Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 10:53 pm by Citizen |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Theseus wrote: MudCamper wroteThis right here is a damn good reason to leave one's ID at home. Not only that but it makes me consider only carrying handguns that I bought in the 80's that aren't in the DOJ database. What statute allows confiscation of legally unregistered guns? |
|||||||||
|
MudCamper Regular Member
|
Mike wrote: Theseus wrote:MudCamper wroteThis right here is a damn good reason to leave one's ID at home. Not only that but it makes me consider only carrying handguns that I bought in the 80's that aren't in the DOJ database. Without arresting you for a crime I am not aware of any statutes that would allow this. The original Sacramento PD memo even interpreted this correctly: Scenario: a person is walking down the street with an unloaded pistol carried openly on their belt. There is a loaded magazine for the pistol located next to the pistol in a magazine pouch. You run the pistol through the automated firearm system and there is no dealer record of sale. ** NOT a violation of PC 12025 or PC 12031. |
|||||||||
|
Theseus Founder's Club Member
|
MudCamper wrote: Mike wrote:Theseus wrote:MudCamper wroteThis right here is a damn good reason to leave one's ID at home. Not only that but it makes me consider only carrying handguns that I bought in the 80's that aren't in the DOJ database. I will withdraw my commend pending my further investigation. I do recall seeing it stated and again supported by a CHP officer. They are told that if a firearm is not registered then they are to confiscate it. Period. Again, I will withdraw the comment until I can find my link and evidence to support my comment. Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 09:50 pm by Theseus |
|||||||||
|
Theseus Founder's Club Member
|
You know, it was the Sacramento PD memo. . . It mentions an enhancement to a charge of loaded if the weapon isn't registered to the carrier. PC 12031(a)(2)(f). |
|||||||||
|
MudCamper Regular Member
|
Theseus wrote: You know, it was the Sacramento PD memo. . . It mentions an enhancement to a charge of loaded if the weapon isn't registered to the carrier. Yes. There is also a sentence enhancement for 12025 if the firearm is not registered to you. But you first have to violate one of these sections. It is perfectly legal to own, possess, and carry an "unregistered" handgun. I legally own several that I purchased prior to the current DROS/registration system. Theseus wrote: I do recall seeing it stated and again supported by a CHP officer. It would not surprise me if many CHP officers believe this. They believe lots of things that are not true. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
CrewDog wrote: First forgive me if my first post is answered somewhere else I could not find a thread about this specific thing. "Self command" issue - binds the gun owner internally to follow thru with the desire to not show ID - he has none to show so he can;t be pressured to give in! Also, if you want to make a point to police about ID, not having ID makes you look all the more reasonable (e.g., you don;t have any to show) and further, educate folks that nobody has to have or carry ID. |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher 
|
In RE: sterile carry. I think Thesues' case is a good argument for not letting them know who you are, but I think Stuckinchico's experience is even more convincing. I don't believe it ever got it's own thread, but it should have. I'll relate what I recall reading from Stuckinchico's posts: He called his local PD to get a feel for what they think about open carry. SWAT Sgt makes some animated comments. Some time after the phone call, Stuckinchico finds out said SWAT Sgt paid a visit to his home, harassing his family, and calling Stuckinchico's sanity into question. Bottom Line: if they don't know where you live, they can't harass you "above and beyond the call of duty". If you carry ID, they are likely to just take it without even asking, and with very little liklihood repurcussion to them. Don't carry it, or hide it well. And, even if there was absolutely no risk to giving them that information... why do it? It's none of their damn business who I am, where I live, how tall I am, or how old I am. If they aren't investigating a crime, and if they have no legal right to demand my ID, then they're being rude by even asking for it. Why should we jump through hoops for someone willfully trampling our rights? |
|||||||||
|
bigtoe416 Regular Member 
|
JeffW, not StuckInChico: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/26932.html |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher
|
bigtoe416 wrote: JeffW, not StuckInChico: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/26932.html Thank you... I was looking for that post. For some reason I was fairly certain it was StuckInChico. I stand corrected. |
|||||||||