Yea, just a few fun loving teenagers having fun with firearms..........
Just like this couple of fun kids.............
Posted on 01/01/2014 11:10:48 AM PST by HereInTheHeartland
Polioce officer is totally ignorant of the 2nd Amendment
Not likely.......
So, at any time, I can or should expect an LEO to ask for my ID? Mmmm, OK, then. I will make sure to have it on my person at all times.
>>In all fairness, he had a right to ask for their permit and I.D.
What about those who weren’t carrying? I’d have been asking “Have I done something wrong, officer? Do you have probable cause to detain me? Am I free to leave?”
It’s not a requirement to have it on your person. That’s not the law. You may have to verbally identify yourself.
Again: Walmart, whatever, needs to post sighs. The right cannot be supposed where it does not exist.
I thought he asked for ID. I guess if he asked for a DL and was handed a passport, he might be a little unnerved.
Why not? Everyone should record the police at all times.
It should be echoed that somebody called in a report of people armed and he had no choice but to respond to the call. I'm sure he was already in a heightened sense of alert once the mention of firearms and thus the apparent agitation.
Once he arrived and saw who was carrying, he should have had no agitation.
As a side note, I'm not in favor of this group's Youtube channel being used to document their own personal encounters with LEO's while they are armed.
Again, why not? I wish the police will someday operateunder the assumption that EVERYONE has a YouTube channel and that they are being recorded at all times.
BUT ... you may have to IDENTIFY yourself, even when you’re not required to have ID on you ... and if you LIE about your identity, that can get you in a mess ... :-) ...
Chief’s Counsel
Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves
By Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police Department
A police officer does not need probable cause to stop a car or a pedestrian and investigate potential crime. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a police officer may initiate a temporary stop, a level of intrusion short of an arrest, if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime.1 This is commonly known as a Terry stop. Further, if the officer can articulate a reasonable basis for suspecting that the subject might be armed, he can pat down the outer clothing of the suspect in a limited search for weapons. This is commonly referred to as a Terry frisk.
The Terry rule has developed quite a bit since 1968, but some aspects remain murky. In particular, if the suspect refuses to give his name or any identifiers, may an officer arrest the suspect? According to the Supreme Court, the police may arrest for failure to identify if state law criminalizes such behavior.
Officers conducting a lawful Terry stop may take steps reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety, check for identification, and maintain the status quo.2 Occasionally a suspect will refuse to identify himself. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Ct. of Nev., a state law requiring a subject to disclose his name during a Terry stop is consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure:
Obtaining a suspect’s name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests. Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder. On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.3
Such a statute does not implicate the subject’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, as simple disclosure of one’s name presents no reasonable danger of incrimination. But the Court clearly limited the application of this new rule by also noting that an officer may not arrest a suspect for failing to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. The question is, is the request for identity a commonsense inquiry or an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence?
Furthermore, a state may not make it a crime to refuse to provide identification on demand in the absence of reasonable suspicion.4 The Court has also held that a requirement that a detainee give “credible and reliable” identification information to the police upon request is too vague to be a criminal offense.5
In short, if the state has a law requiring suspects to identify themselves when asked to do so during a valid stop or detention, the U.S. Constitution will not bar arrest and prosecution for failure to do so. It is not clear what officers may do if their jurisdiction does not have a law against failing to identify oneself.
Failure to Identify and Traffic Stops
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has held that, in the context of traffic stops based on reasonable suspicion alone, a “motorist may be detained for a short period while the officer runs a background check to see if there are any outstanding warrants or criminal history pertaining to the motorist even though the purpose of the stop had nothing to do with such prior criminal history.”6 Several other circuits have come to the same conclusion.7
The Tenth Circuit addressed the issue later in United States v. Villagrana-Flores: “We explained in Holt that ‘the justification for detaining a motorist to obtain a criminal history check is, in part, officer safety’ because ‘by determining whether a detained motorist has a criminal record or outstanding warrants, an officer will be better apprized of whether the detained motorist might engage in violent activity during the stop.’” As long as the detention is for a short period, “the government’s strong interest in officer safety outweighs the motorist’s interests.”8
Failure to Identify and Pedestrians
Officer safety is just as strongly implicated where the individual being detained for a short period of time is on foot rather than in an automobile. An officer detaining a pedestrian has an equally strong interest in knowing whether that individual has a violent past or is currently wanted on outstanding warrants. The citizen’s interest, on the other hand, is no more robust merely because a short detention occurs while traversing on foot.
Moreover, permitting a warrants check during a Terry stop on the street also “promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice.”9 Indeed, an identity’s utility in “inform[ing] an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder,”10 would be nonexistent without the ability to use the identity to run a criminal background check.
AND ... there’s a lot more in the rest of the article ...
How many 18 to 22 year old US citizens carry their passport but leave their DL at home???
She did that deliberately to be a pest.
She had a DL and probably on her.
/johnny
This group of s disturbers were nothing more than attention-seeking internet hounds acting badly in hopes of catching the officers making a mistake and drawing attention to their internet site.
I wish he had hauled them all in for their poor performances.
One who a) may not have a DL (my son got his at 21) b) just moved from New York and is waiting for the new one to arrive in Oklahoma c) who had just returned from a trip to Canada prior to leaving for Oklahoma and there are others that are possible, as well.
I do carry my ID with me, along with my DOD one and my CC. I have no warrants and see no reason why, unless I am behaving in a suspicious manner, any LEO should have access to any of them. But, that is my opinion. If it is the law, I guess I would have to go along with the demand.
Yea, just a few fun loving teenagers having fun with firearms..........
Just like this couple of fun kids.............
I thought that she said she had just moved there?
Good point. But if you are going to try to make a statement you had better know and be prepared to explain your rights to a police officer or employees who doesn’t know the law or company policy. Makes more of a statement and might keep you out of trouble that way — “oh, we do post no firearms, it is on the east door, not the south door,” etc.
I repeat. EVERYONE should record the police at all times! What were these young people doing to cause trouble or seek attention exactly??
Aside from background checks in town, Onslow requires command endorsements (civilians do not have to do such from their employers). They think everyone is stupid and claim that military folks move so much and Onslow has no way of determining if Marines got in trouble elsewhere.
You can get an NJP (non judicial punishment - a slap on the wrist) for showing up to work late and sheriff douchebag can use that to deny you a CCW permit.
I remember back in the day the sheriff telling me I needed a command endorsement, the company, battalion, MCB, and MEF didn't know what to do because the law didn't require it and none of the Marine Corps side orders required it. So, eventually the military side caved and it is now required. Basically and end run around the 2D and 14th Amendments against the people defending them.
I know a couple of Marines that tried to get permits and the sheriff asked what unit they were in......he told them not to bother with the paperwork as he wasn't a fan of the commands. The Marines ended up taking leave (living in NC reciprocal states like Fl) and getting their permits.
Luckily mine is from VA and reciprocates in NC - as I lost interest in dealing with sheriff dumbass, who as rumor has it can't even pass a basic Marine Corps pistol qualification.
On the flip side, I know others that got theirs no problem -YMMV
Even better, two other counties (Pender and Carteret? have recently followed Onslows "lead.")
Also, a lot of local law - Onslow sheriff and JPD try to discourage Marines from open carry, as they come on base for stupid safety classes and spread their BS.
I don't know what you are talking about.
In the states where I have lived that "allow" open carry, the WHOLE idea is that under the Second Amendment we are allowed to keep and BEAR arms with no interference, other than the demands of private property owners, of course.
Montana and Idaho, for instance, restrict concealed carry weapons to permit holders only. Open carry is...OPEN CARRY. The state has affirmed that the Second Amendment empowers me to walk around bearing my firearm.
A quick check on Missouri statutes suggests the same situation there.
When I see comments like yours, blithely accepting that we are supposed to carry an ID in order to walk the streets, or a "permit" of some sort to keep and bear arms, I realize how far down the slope of statism even self-identified conservatives have slipped.
See 117
I missed something. Who are they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.