If you want to carry a gun. you have to carry (and present when asked) a valid, government-issued ID.

If you want to vote. you have to carry (and present when asked) a valid, government-issued ID.

If you want to express a political opinion. you have to carry (and present when asked) a valid, government-issued ID.

(repeat, lather, rinse, ...)

Substitute any right in the above statement, and you'll see how it becomes a debate about limiting a citizen's ability to exercise his rights.

Stop and ID was declared unconstitutional in the Kolender case in the 1980's and stopping someone to see if they are "legal" violates Delaware v Prouse.

Hawaii gun owners are so use to being beat in the ground that I can almost understand why they view sterile carry as dangerous and scary.

We had a guy who was nice and showed ID in Michigan, the police mailed him a disorderly conduct misdemeanor court summons that he had to spend $$$$$ to beat, where if he simply kept his mouth shut and did not show ID, the police would have had no way to entrap him and make up a bogus charge on him.

If showing an ID was ok and acceptable upon request then how would these people feel if I ID'ed them envy time they walked with their child, because they could be a pedophile who abducted the kid for all I know    

So you agree there should be no controls against fraudulent voting or stuffing the ballot box ?
Against armed criminal gang bangers walking the streets with their guns in full view ?

I believe in common sense.

And I believe we need to fight for our rights when the Government exceeds common sense.     

Who's version of common sense?  Yours?  The Liberal/Progressive/Socialist administration's?  The Senate's?  The House of Representatives'?  The voting majority?  What's the definition of common sense these days?

As far as I can tell, the whole world, our nation included, has lost it's collective mind when it comes to government.

We had a guy who was nice and showed ID in Michigan, the police mailed him a disorderly conduct misdemeanor court summons that he had to spend $$$$$ to beat, where if he simply kept his mouth shut and did not show ID, the police would have had no way to entrap him and make up a bogus charge on him.

If showing an ID was ok and acceptable upon request then how would these people feel if I ID'ed them envy time they walked with their child, because they could be a pedophile who abducted the kid for all I know    

Wow !

Now there's something to think about.  And I mean that sincerely.

Bottom line fellas for me on this and I think about it everyday when all said and done you cannot not sort between the things on the constitution that you like or dont like its either you support your right or dont! Cant pick and choose. You have to live with the good and bad, the lesser of 2evils for me and my rights is the lesser evil for me.

"Papers! Vehr arrr your papers?! Ah must see zee papers."

I am against the general consensus, If the law says I am not required to show you my ID then you are not going to see it. It is my right to privacy. So what If I am carrying a gun. Government does not give people rights, It only takes them away. And I'll be damned if they are going to get another freaking one of them. There are reasons why these laws exist. And personally I do not want to have any smidgen of information out in the world if it does not need to be.

Stop and ID was declared unconstitutional in the Kolender case in the 1980's and stopping someone to see if they are "legal" violates Delaware v Prouse.

Hawaii gun owners are so use to being beat in the ground that I can almost understand why they view sterile carry as dangerous and scary.

We had a guy who was nice and showed ID in Michigan, the police mailed him a disorderly conduct misdemeanor court summons that he had to spend $$$$$ to beat, where if he simply kept his mouth shut and did not show ID, the police would have had no way to entrap him and make up a bogus charge on him.

If showing an ID was ok and acceptable upon request then how would these people feel if I ID'ed them envy time they walked with their child, because they could be a pedophile who abducted the kid for all I know

I know that this no "Stop and ID Law" is certainly not being strictly enforced across the board by all Michigan LEO, specifically in the Detroit Metropolitan area. When I was there recently I was stopped several times while walking and I believe only asked to present ID once, although many in the neighborhood have been asked for ID often, and I was not open carrying a firearm or in a car. So obviously some within the PDs and Sheriff Department's still do this and have been for a long time. It sounds like you are suggesting it's best not to comply with any request because LEO do not have the legal authority to stop a person and ascertain any information in the first place. I get it but I don't necessarily agree with the all or nothing concept but the law is the law. I personally don't have an issue with complying, especially if it deters crime, but that's just me.

Many elderly people are so afraid to go outside because of gang related activity and these same punks are canvassing the neighborhoods for easy victims and LEO can't even legally stop them on their bicycles or walking to inquire what they are doing, or where they live, or whom they're visiting, unless they have probable cause. From my experience, law abiding citizens in this particular geographical area that I know don't mind this minor inconvenience, or at least I have never heard anyone I know verbally complain about a police officer stopping them and asking a few simple questions or looking at their ID, and then they're on their way, especially when they know it actually cuts down on the undesirables (criminal element) in the neighborhood, and that is something the community can physically see…they know exactly who belongs in the area and who doesn’t. Most law-abiding citizens in these crime-ridden areas welcome the presence of LEO. I have personally heard nothing to the contrary.

IMO it's pretty hard to put a dent in these crime-infested neighborhoods when your hands are tied and the criminals know this, but then again the crime rate in these areas speak volumes, with no end in sight.

I know that this no "Stop and ID Law" is certainly not being strictly enforced across the board by all Michigan LEO, specifically in the Detroit Metropolitan area. When I was there recently I was stopped several times while walking and I believe only asked to present ID once, although many in the neighborhood have been asked for ID often, and I was not open carrying a firearm or in a car. So obviously some within the PDs and Sheriff Department's still do this and have been for a long time. It sounds like you are suggesting it's best not to comply with any request because LEO do not have the legal authority to stop a person and ascertain any information in the first place. I get it but I don't necessarily agree with the all or nothing concept but the law is the law. I personally don't have an issue with complying, especially if it deters crime, but that's just me.

Many elderly people are so afraid to go outside because of gang related activity and these same punks are canvassing the neighborhoods for easy victims and LEO can't even legally stop them on their bicycles or walking to inquire what they are doing, or where they live, or whom they're visiting, unless they have probable cause. From my experience, law abiding citizens in this particular geographical area that I know don't mind this minor inconvenience, or at least I have never heard anyone I know verbally complain about a police officer stopping them and asking a few simple questions or looking at their ID, and then they're on their way, especially when they know it actually cuts down on the undesirables (criminal element) in the neighborhood, and that is something the community can physically see…they know exactly who belongs in the area and who doesn’t. Most law-abiding citizens in these crime-ridden areas welcome the presence of LEO. I have personally heard nothing to the contrary.

IMO it's pretty hard to put a dent in these crime-infested neighborhoods when your hands are tied and the criminals know this, but then again the crime rate in these areas speak volumes, with no end in sight.

Detroit is a failed socialist experiment.

Many gun owners in Michigan stand up for their rights, you can view more at www.migunowners.org or Michigan Open Carry.

The Detroit PD is part of the problem and there is a reason why the FBI tells people who transfer in to the Detroit Field Office to  not identify themselves as FBI to Detroit Police unless absolutely necessary since they are constantly being investigated by the FBI.

The crime problem isn't that bad outside of Detroit, it hasn't gone past Redford, nor has it passed Ecorse, and most of us don't care if Detroit rots and we are tired of Michigan being controlled by Detroit and Flint in the same way New York City controls New York State.

I have no problem with people voluntarily giving ID of asked, but it's not required, and it's our right, and the constitution and liberty are infinitely more important to me than a failed crap hole city. And these officers that have not fallen in line with state police training bulletins better learn that no means no and a consensual encounter is not another word for detention.

There are people in Detroit who care, I believe their group is called 300 or something and I know  many of them-open carry.

Detroit is a failed socialist experiment.

Many gun owners in Michigan stand up for their rights, you can view more at www.migunowners.org or Michigan Open Carry.

The Detroit PD is part of the problem and there is a reason why the FBI tells people who transfer in to the Detroit Field Office to  not identify themselves as FBI to Detroit Police unless absolutely necessary since they are constantly being investigated by the FBI.

The crime problem isn't that bad outside of Detroit, it hasn't gone past Redford, nor has it passed Ecorse, and most of us don't care if Detroit rots and we are tired of Michigwn being controlled by Detroit and Flint in the same way New York City controls New York State.

Sadly, I agree with everything you said and you're absolutely correct...many great places in Michigan, especially up north. It's just places like you mentioned that screw it up and I'd throw Inkster in that list for good measures, not to mention the economy and unemployment are terrible.

Well said.

If showing an ID was ok and acceptable upon request then how would these people feel if I ID'ed them envy time they walked with their child, because they could be a pedophile who abducted the kid for all I know

Stop and ID is not an acceptable form of determining squat, it's simply a form of harassment. One cannot effectively determine the intent of an individual by knowing his or her name or what's filed on them in a data base. Thinking it can effectively solve potential issues is simply exercising well wishing nonsense. If the police are called because someone is exercising a right to carry arms and if the police feel there maybe a possible problem, they can drive by the person, go chat with them and walk along with them if desired (no id asked for), wave at them (let them know they are there) and if the police still feel it necessary - watch the person from a distance (this is all well within the law). Interrogative measures beyond simple observations are not necessary. It's really that simple.
 
And how many criminals with warrants would dare to walk down the street open carry and draw attention to themselves? More likely the person walking open carry is simply making a statement or simply doing what he or she always does in most cases. A criminal about to commit a crime in such a scenario - slim chance indeed.

Are you telling us that a daring ex-con could walk around with a gun (which is illegal) looking for their significant other and nobody can stop him/her because LEO cannot stop and ID the person? Until after the fact?

Ditto a person with a restraining order?

Are you also telling us that a LEO data base cannot determine if a person is a convict/ex-con or has a RO placed on them?



 

Well said.
Stop and ID is not an acceptable form of determining squat, it's simply a form of harassment. One cannot effectively determine the intent of an individual by knowing his or her name or what's filed on them in a data base. Thinking it can effectively solve potential issues is simply exercising well wishing nonsense. If the police are called because someone is exercising a right to carry arms and if the police feel there maybe a possible problem, they can drive by the person, go chat with them and walk along with them if desired (no id asked for), wave at them (let them know they are there) and if the police still feel it necessary - watch the person from a distance (this is all well within the law). Interrogative measures beyond simple observations are not necessary. It's really that simple.
 
And how many criminals with warrants would dare to walk down the street open carry and draw attention to themselves? More likely the person walking open carry is simply making a statement or simply doing what he or she always does in most cases. A criminal about to commit a crime in such a scenario - slim chance indeed.

Exactly.

The same arguments against open carry can be used against concealed carry. Anyone could have a concealed gun and they could kill me with it.  That could justify a terry frisk on everyone without limit.

If ID'ing someone who open carries is necessary than the same holds true for concealed carry (along with a terry frisk).

Are you telling us that a daring ex-con could walk around with a gun (which is illegal) looking for their significant other and nobody can stop him/her because LEO cannot stop and ID the person? Until after the fact?

Ditto a person with a restraining order?

Are you also telling us that a LEO data base cannot determine if a person is a convict/ex-con or has a RO placed on them?

It would appear that you are suffering from "victim mentality". I say victim mentality because it's evident that you have fallen victim to the past 15 years of the present statist corporate news medias objective to put fear into the minds of the public in order to gain their acceptance for further statist agendas. Shock, Divide and Conquer. It's time to wake up and snap out of it.

 "unreasonable search" means there is no reason for the search, a search that is conducted out of simple suspicion without a reason beyond simple suspicion is an unreasonable search. It would appear you're willing to toss the 4th amendment out the window to provide yourself with some false security. I'll leave you with a little homework on the matter :

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. This was written by Franklin, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.

Well said.
Stop and ID is not an acceptable form of determining squat, it's simply a form of harassment. One cannot effectively determine the intent of an individual by knowing his or her name or what's filed on them in a data base. Thinking it can effectively solve potential issues is simply exercising well wishing nonsense. If the police are called because someone is exercising a right to carry arms and if the police feel there maybe a possible problem, they can drive by the person, go chat with them and walk along with them if desired (no id asked for), wave at them (let them know they are there) and if the police still feel it necessary - watch the person from a distance (this is all well within the law). Interrogative measures beyond simple observations are not necessary. It's really that simple.
 
And how many criminals with warrants would dare to walk down the street open carry and draw attention to themselves? More likely the person walking open carry is simply making a statement or simply doing what he or she always does in most cases. A criminal about to commit a crime in such a scenario - slim chance indeed.

You may give criminals more credit than many deserve.  if criminals were that smart, I bet the jails would be displaying a VACANCY sign!

Sacramento motorist in disabled parking spot awakens to his arrest

http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2013/05/sacramento-motorist-in-disabled-parking-spot-awakens-to-of-his-arrest.html

I also read of a guy who ARGUED with a cop about moving the car he was in from the handicapped spot.  After refusing to move, the cop ID'ed the guy and found he had warrants!!  The guy was arrested because he decided to give the cop attitude and not move from where he was ILLEGALLY PARKED.

I can see a guy reasoning: the cops will NEVER suspect him of being a felon or a fugitive AND carrying a loaded weapon openly.  No cop would ever imagine someone being that stupid!

Is asking to show your ID an unreasonable search? 

When you go to a bar or buy cig's you gotta show your ID.

Why is it so hard to comply? 


I guess a terrorist could run up and down a street everyday full on camo, gun and gear with no fear of being stopped.

All I want to do is ask is "are you legit," if you are, hey great, now I'm not worried, you can run in front of my house all day if you want.


As far as a pedophile, if a child is taken, they have an Amber alert,  and if you suspect something you should report it anyway.


 

Is asking to show your ID an unreasonable search? 

When you go to a bar or buy cig's you gotta show your ID.

Why is it so hard to comply? 


I guess a terrorist could run up and down a street everyday full on camo, gun and gear with no fear of being stopped.

All I want to do is ask is "are you legit," if you are, hey great, now I'm not worried, you can run in front of my house all day if you want.


As far as a pedophile, if a child is taken, they have an Amber alert,  and if you suspect something you should report it anyway.

The thing you don't seem to get is this concept of "probable cause."  An officer may ask for your ID as a matter of investigating a complaint, checking on why you are carrying a gun, etc.  However, unless he has probable cause to suspect you of a crime, he can't force you to cooperate with his investigation.  He's just doing what he was trained to.  He must write a report, and to do that, he needs to record names, places, times, and other details.

His problem is not your problem.  While it's okay to feel like cooperating, there are bad things that can happen if you give up your right to remain silent.  Anything you say can, AND WILL, be used against you in a court of law.  That  is called a WARNING for a reason.  Too many people assisted the Cops in locking their butts up, so the Miranda Warning was instituted to make sure you aren't ignorant of your rights and the consequences of volunteering information.

If you feel compelled to always answer when a Cop asks you something, then YOU ARE FREE to do so.  I, however, may not feel the same way.  It isn't because I'm afraid he'll discover I have warrants.  It's because that officer represents the state.  The state will screw you, sometimes completely unintentionally, if you give it a chance. 

Depending on the situation, the circumstances, and the rationale at the moment, I may feel obligated to volunteer information to help him do his job.  But, I won't make being cooperative an automatic rule!

Is asking to show your ID an unreasonable search? 

When you go to a bar or buy cig's you gotta show your ID.

Why is it so hard to comply? 


I guess a terrorist could run up and down a street everyday full on camo, gun and gear with no fear of being stopped.

All I want to do is ask is "are you legit," if you are, hey great, now I'm not worried, you can run in front of my house all day if you want.


As far as a pedophile, if a child is taken, they have an Amber alert,  and if you suspect something you should report it anyway.

"Is asking to show your ID an unreasonable search?"
That's an entirely subjective question. When you buy cigarettes at the store; is there a "reason" to ask for your ID? Answer: Yes, the store is subject to a law that forbids them to sell cigs to those under the age of 18 and it's the law to "card" them. If you ask to buy cigs, they have a "reason" to ask for you to prove your age via legal identification and if they fail to ask, they may be fined by an undercover cop instead. A reasonable request by the store when your intent is to purchase a controlled substance and they are subject to a fine by law if they fail to ask for your ID. The store is not the State conducting an investigation.
When you walk down the street in a place where it is legal to open carry and you open carry there is no "reason" to ask for your ID. Find a legitimate reason beyond unsupported suspicions and you have a reason, until then you're acting only on unsupported suspicion.
"All I want to do is ask is "are you legit,"  Does this mean your running an entire background check, will it include the current mind intent of the suspected also? If not your "legit" assumption is a fallacy. A false state of security indeed.
:"As far as a pedophile..." Amber alerts are only possible when someone places a report under particular circumstances... very few abducted children are noticed missing at the moment they are abducted and by the time a report is made many minutes or even hours have past, so your reliance on the state just failed you there.  Each of your arguments are full of holes and contain no consistency with anything short of one who "thinks" the State will do everything for you (a very dangerous mistaken mindset indeed). I would recommend taking a deep breath and looking the other way, focus your mind on your business instead of someone else's stroll down the street. Are you our keeper and do you really want to be? When you can determine reasonable suspicion then you have an in. Does the person who is practicing open carry look under age, are they staggering, are they shouting crazy talk, are they aiming the firearm at you, are they drooling or frothing at the mouth, was there a gun fired moments before hand, is there someone running away from them? Do you have a reasonable suspicion or are you simply after a false sense of security... think about it a little more deeply and if you still come to the same assumption, you're only fooling you still.

I don't get when you say "I have a false sense of security."

I actually am backing up the open carry and welcome open carry.

On one of my other post I complain that we here in Hawaii cannot even take our guns when we check on our mailbox next to the street that is at the edge of our yards.

If I have a false sense of security, where does that leave everyone else, we all live on these islands and we don't even have open carry, not even CCW.  If you have a gun in your car you cannot even stop at 7-11 to buy a soda, or stop at McD for some fries.
Hawaii is a police state and we are living in it, and we must love it because we ain't leaving.  Do you feel secure?
I have guns, yet I don't feel safe, I feel like I am wasting my money buying guns, so much for that false sense of security, I honestly feel they are going to be confiscated, and not a dam thing we can do about it.

If you feel that you can out shoot the LEO and military than go ahead,  I don't have that confidence, but in the mean time, you surely must know that Hawaii is ranked in the bottom 5 for least amount of personal freedom.

Hawaii rank #47 in Personal Freedom

http://freedominthe50states.org/
Hawaii rank #47 in Personal Freedom

The thing you don't seem to get is this concept of "probable cause."  An officer may ask for your ID as a matter of investigating a complaint, checking on why you are carrying a gun, etc.  However, unless he has probable cause to suspect you of a crime, he can't force you to cooperate with his investigation.  He's just doing what he was trained to.  He must write a report, and to do that, he needs to record names, places, times, and other details.

His problem is not your problem.  While it's okay to feel like cooperating, there are bad things that can happen if you give up your right to remain silent.  Anything you say can, AND WILL, be used against you in a court of law.  That  is called a WARNING for a reason.  Too many people assisted the Cops in locking their butts up, so the Miranda Warning was instituted to make sure you aren't ignorant of your rights and the consequences of volunteering information.

If you feel compelled to always answer when a Cop asks you something, then YOU ARE FREE to do so.  I, however, may not feel the same way.  It isn't because I'm afraid he'll discover I have warrants.  It's because that officer represents the state.  The state will screw you, sometimes completely unintentionally, if you give it a chance. 

Depending on the situation, the circumstances, and the rationale at the moment, I may feel obligated to volunteer information to help him do his job.  But, I won't make being cooperative an automatic rule!

"Is asking to show your ID an unreasonable search?"
That's an entirely subjective question. When you buy cigarettes at the store; is there a "reason" to ask for your ID? Answer: Yes, the store is subject to a law that forbids them to sell cigs to those under the age of 18 and it's the law to "card" them. If you ask to buy cigs, they have a "reason" to ask for you to prove your age via legal identification and if they fail to ask, they may be fined by an undercover cop instead. A reasonable request by the store when your intent is to purchase a controlled substance and they are subject to a fine by law if they fail to ask for your ID. The store is not the State conducting an investigation.
When you walk down the street in a place where it is legal to open carry and you open carry there is no "reason" to ask for your ID. Find a legitimate reason beyond unsupported suspicions and you have a reason, until then you're acting only on unsupported suspicion.
"All I want to do is ask is "are you legit,"  Does this mean your running an entire background check, will it include the current mind intent of the suspected also? If not your "legit" assumption is a fallacy. A false state of security indeed.
:"As far as a pedophile..." Amber alerts are only possible when someone places a report under particular circumstances... very few abducted children are noticed missing at the moment they are abducted and by the time a report is made many minutes or even hours have past, so your reliance on the state just failed you there.  Each of your arguments are full of holes and contain no consistency with anything short of one who "thinks" the State will do everything for you (a very dangerous mistaken mindset indeed). I would recommend taking a deep breath and looking the other way, focus your mind on your business instead of someone else's stroll down the street. Are you our keeper and do you really want to be? When you can determine reasonable suspicion then you have an in. Does the person who is practicing open carry look under age, are they staggering, are they shouting crazy talk, are they aiming the firearm at you, are they drooling or frothing at the mouth, was there a gun fired moments before hand, is there someone running away from them? Do you have a reasonable suspicion or are you simply after a false sense of security... think about it a little more deeply and if you still come to the same assumption, you're only fooling you still.

Both excellent posts.  If there was a call regarding a bald Asian male wearing a black tshirt and blue jeans who robbed someone at gunpoint and I fit the description, I'd absolutely expect a police officer to take my ID, cuff, and detain me.  That, in my opinion, is reasonable search and seizure (true story, happened to me).  If I'm just a regular Joe walking about and someone complains about a man with a gun (and I'm in a state where open carry is legal), I wouldn't consent to anything and would definitely be recording the entire encounter.