Help educate a european

H

Husqvarna

New member
Help educate a european

First let me say that I have nothing against gun rights, open or concealed carry and all that, I fully support it.

What I don't get is this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7UMdniHWkI&feature=related

the refusal to identify yourself when asked by a police officer. what is the problem in showing an ID? the cop sees that you are a good guy and you can walk away. I get that you don't wnat to be registred but that doesn't need to happen.

I mean you would show your drivers license if the cops pulled you over right? what is the difference?

Seems like crooks can get away with carrying guns by just refusing to show ID. Or a kid/teenager, or a Swede:)
 
if they have no reason to ask for it why show it to them?

If I stopped you on the street and asked to see you ID would you show it to me? Why are they any different?
 
the reason is that you are carrying a gun, how are they to know that it is legal for you to do so? just your word?

And if some random dude on the street asked me I would probably laugh it of but a cop I would show him, there is no harm in doing that because I have done nothing wrong, if you are carrying legally nothing would happen.

If anything just show it to the cop so he or she can go on about their day and serve the community
 
Driving is not a right enumerated in the constitution.

Edited to add: Also, when I am driving, a LEO still needs probable cause to pull me over before he (or she) can even ask for my DL. I can't see the video (firewalled from work), so this may or may not be helpful to a discussion of the video.
 
In the USA we have no law requiring us to provide ID to anyone unless they suspect us of a crime, or if we require a permit to do what we are seen doing. If we are seen driving, we can "generally" be asked for our drivers license. If a state requires a permit to carry a pistol, we can be asked to show the permit. But "generally" we are free to not identify ourselves. With open carry it may be a grey area: You cannot posess a firearm if you are a prohibited person, IE: a convicted criminal, etc... so how are the police to know if it's OK or not without checking? And I am sure that people can argue it both ways with full conviction.



Now, I am a defender of our 2nd amendment, and I excercise my rights to the fullest. With that said: The "Open Carry" folks who carry openly in cities and other places where it really is not appropriate from a "social" viewpoint are really just asking to be challenged. In my personal view, many of them delight in just being passive-aggressive confrontationalists. Yes they may have the "right"... but that does not make it "right". I equate it to farting loudly in an elevator: There's no law against it, but do not be surprised if you are not welcomed with open arms for your actions. In the end they make it harder for all of us to gain acceptance from the public. Confrontations like this make us no friends.

And, in fact... it's a stupid tactic if you really want to carry for self defense. Giving up the advantage of surprise is not terribly smart.



Willie

.
 
Last edited:
the reason is that you are carrying a gun, how are they to know that it is legal for you to do so? just your word?
Click to expand...

Should you have to go through a check-point every time you drive your car?

I would not intentionally carry in front of a cop just to provoke them, but I also do not feel like I should be hassled when I am doing something legal.

Where do you draw the line? The guy in the link has rights.

I would have shown my ID, but that is just me. (Yes, I do open carry. But usually it is around my property or when fishing.)
 
No it doesn't creep me out. In Britain they videotape everything and it hasn't turned into a evil dictatorship. The EU has tamed both Fritz and Ivan I reckon:)
 
You must understand that here it's a cultural thing! Here, generally speaking, government is NOT viewed as a helpful, big brotherish entity. For those that are enamored of the originalist, constitutional concept of American Govt., Govt. is a necessary evil, to be minimalized at best, and preferably,mostly avoided.

The view that 'if I'm not commiting a crime, leave me alone' is a rejection on it's face of the concept that government has an inherent right to intrude on one's right to privacy. Absent any articular able reason, no entity of government ought to have the ability to intrude on an otherwise peaceful citizens action. Insofar as the illicit possesser...ie: the felon or otherwise prohibited, well, a prime concept in our legal system is that it's better that many of the guilty go free rather than one innocent be convicted....guess you could extend that to even a query. In general, one has no obligation to respond to baseless questioning, and generally may absent himself/herself from such a contact. IE: "If I'm NOT under arrest, I'm leaving". If one is stopped thereafter it's likely an arrest, and likely false, illegal, and therefore actionable!

Like I said, its an American thing, and in sum, not a bad idea if one is not a subscriber to extended governmental power!


I meant to add, that even after being a LEO for plus 30, I remain convinced that for the 'convenience of gov't' or it's agents, is probably the WORST reason for passage of any legislation. Too, it's worth stating that one of the primary reasons for the inclusion of our right to bear arms in our BOR, is that such a provision provided the final statement for a corrupt government....in short, the ultimate vote!
 
Last edited:
But Buck I am not saying that he doesn't have the right to carry, just that he gotta show that he has got it.

Isn't it better that cops can ask anybody to show rather then having to arrest everybody on the spot that they are suspecting of carrying illegally?

Some people look awfully young you know (I sell fireworks and carded a 32 year old girl:eek:)"

Isn't option A smoother? Doesn't the current situation kinda allow those who doesn't have the right to carry a loophole?

And I think it is kinda unfair towards the cops, they do a dangerous job serving the community but get a bunch of "unpatriotic" crap hurled towards them.
 
Husqvarna said:
No it doesn't creep me out. In Britain they videotape everything and it hasn't turned into a evil dictatorship. The EU has tamed both Fritz and Ivan I reckon:)
Click to expand...

Some would say (me included) that 100 cameras on every street IS evil.

The bigger issue: it hasn't turned into a dictatorship YET. What if tomorrow the British government very tightly but very slowly started cracking down on liberties? Slow enough to avoid international attention. Under a pretense of democracy. In ten years it could be a quasi dictatorship, and if people are conditioned to accept government intrusion without objecting, there wouldn't even be a fight. In hundreds of small ways this is already happening. People in England have much fewer rights (to guns, to their money, to privacy) than their grandfathers.

A well-behaved, well intentioned open carrier should not have to show ID to exercise a right. Innocent until proven guilty.

That said, I think the open carriers who seek out police confrontations are complete *expletive deleted* that hurt the gun rights cause far more than they help it.

Edit:

Reading up a bit, I see you've mentioned fireworks and driving as analogous. Your issue might be with understanding how powerful Constitutional rights are. They are afforded far stricter protection than ordinary laws or rights passed by Congress. Fireworks and cars aren't in our founding document. Speech, security from search and seizure, and guns are.
 
Nice breakdown Dogrunner, think my last post came when you were writing yours

I can understand it philosophically/politically but not pragmatically I guess, and can you really expect privacy when you are in public?



I to hold a dream about a cabin in the woods and living of the land but the reality is another thing, and you do have a government in place now, it has been legally and democratically put into place right?
 
Well, firstly, we...the United States....are emphatically not, and were never intended to be a "Democracy". We were intended to be, and some of us still believe, we are a Constitutional Republic.......there IS a very real difference.
 
Re Lockedbreach I only used fireworks to illustrate the point about how age determination can be hard

Maybe this all went above my head and I started typing before thinking.

If a policeofficer stops an open carry dude with a precise and spoken suspicion for example

Police officer: I suspect you are not an adult, show me your ID!
is that correct and are you forced to show it then? Or just be arrested on the spot.

Or
Policeofficer: Hey are you Mr X known felon? Id yourself!
(if some open carry guy actually looks like a known criminal)
would that be okey?
 
Here in America, we really want no government at all, we want to live under the radar, drive over the speed limit, eliminate taxes and increase war spending. We want everyone to speak English and only English, including those countries we are helping to achieve democracy. However, we do not wish to have any English proficiency testing because we'd mostly fail. Furthermore, we want 9mm outlawed, the .45 brought out of retirement and the M1 rifle readopted. We would like to have Indian reservations eliminated except for those with casinos. And that's just for starters.

Some here obviously have no concept of either what a republic is or what democracy is and it follows they do not know how dictatorships come to be. It is entirely possible that some contributors here are anti-democratic and anti-revolutionary and are a danger to both the state and themselves and should be re-educated.
 
I sincerely hope that was a joke Blue, because I thought it was really funny. … especially the re-education of counterrevolutionaries. If not, I’d have to feel sorry for you.

Another point often overlooked is that our Constitution is not a social contract between government and the people, but a contract between the people to create a government which is in service to the people.
The federal government has no rights at all. The people retain all of their natural rights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top