this recent thread discussing open carry and the requirement to ID in some circumstances can add mroe light to the topic for you.
Second, and to directly answer your question, it depends on the entirety of the situation if a person is required to ID his/herself. If its a consentual encounter, then no, a person is not required to ID him/herself. If a person is detained then generally yes, a person must ID him/herself (the laws on this vary depending on state).
What possible positive outcome could there be of refusing to Identify yourself to police and they can clearly see you have a firearm?
Or is this just a cute trick conducted by people looking for a civil litigation claim at a later date??
There really isnt a positive out come for refusing to ID yourself, at least in my view. Also, if a person does not ID him/herself, and later decides to file a complaint against an officer, it may
be harder to substantiate the claim.
Yes, in my view this is just an ego trip for certain people trying to "fish" for a payout since most town/city/county/state lawyers will figure the cost of a trial, even if it is a complete farce, and offer a payout to make the person go away in an attempt to save money in the long run. Personally I would prefer to see the town/city/county/state lawyers actually fight for a not guilty when it is clear the officer did the right thing, again in my opinion.