Open carry question

Status
Not open for further replies.
3

3rdDragoon

New member
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? :confused:

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??
 
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).

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??
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top