June 8, 2012, 07:03 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: February 20, 2010
Location: Western Victoria
Posts: 63
|
Open carry question
Hi all,
Please pardon my ignorance, I don't live in the USA and have a question in regards to 'open carry' rules. Do the police have the authority to demand I.D of someone who is observed 'open carrying'??? I found a you tube video of a guy who decided to go for a walk with his Ak-47 (I think in Michigan??) and there was an inevitable confrontation with authorities and he found himself looking down the barrel of (several) M-4 carbines. He then goes of on a rant about 'I am not breaking the law so therefore i don't have to talk to the cops' thing. Surely the police can legally require I.D and be given the opportunity to confirm the identity of the person observed in a public place with a firearm?? Are cops supposed to take your word for it that you; are legally allowed to carry and do not have a criminal history? 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??
__________________
You gonna pull those pistols or whistle dixie? |
June 8, 2012, 07:22 AM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
this recent thread discussing open carry and the requirement to ID in some circumstances can add mroe light to the topic for you.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=488986 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). Quote:
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. Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; June 8, 2012 at 07:28 AM. Reason: edit first sentence |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|