16 Open Carriers vs Several Police Officers!

[TheReaper]

Your response to me was that you supported forcing people to show identification along with a LTCH to an investigating officer.

Not meaning ID, meaning LTCH

 

[KG1]

Your response to me was that you supported forcing people to show identification along with a LTCH to an investigating officer.

That's the way I took it as well. The "Show me your papers law"

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Not meaning ID, meaning LTCH

The crime of carrying a handgun without a license is a proactive defense law, in other words the suspect MUST prove he is legal or he can be arrested. Therefore it only makes sense to show a valid LTCH or have a similar proof of exemption under the law.

I am not understanding your point here, please elaborate.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

That's the way I took it as well. The "Show me your papers law"

Papiere, bitte fraulien.

 

[TheReaper]

The crime of carrying a handgun without a license is a proactive defense law, in other words the suspect MUST prove he is legal or he can be arrested. Therefore it only makes sense to show a valid LTCH or have a similar proof of exemption under the law.

I am not understanding your point here, please elaborate.

I know all of that, look at all of the idiots here that refuse to show LTCH's because its not required by law. It should be required.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I know all of that, look at all of the idiots here that refuse to show LTCH's because its not required by law. It should be required.

Perhaps the video is not from Indiana?

Some states do not require a license to OC therefore no license would matter and that is the way it should be.

I would caution you from accusing people of being "idiots" though as that can be considered defamatory against other members here.

 

[TheReaper]

Perhaps the video is not from Indiana?

Some states do not require a license to OC therefore no license would matter and that is the way it should be.

I would caution you from accusing people of being "idiots" though as that can be considered defamatory against other members here.

I know the video isn't from Indiana and yes, there are some "idiots" on here that advocate not showing a LTCH to any LEO and that it idiocy.

 

[eSC]

I know the video isn't from Indiana and yes, there are some "idiots" on here that advocate not showing a LTCH to any LEO and that it idiocy.

Why should someone not guilty of a crime have to prove that they are not committing a crime?

.

 

[Pinkzebraglockgirl]

Funny thing is, if a BG came in to do harm it would have looked just like Gunny's Glock ad. Milkshake machine and all, LOL.

I love that ad and u r so right.

 

[Roadie]

I know the video isn't from Indiana and yes, there are some "idiots" on here that advocate not showing a LTCH to any LEO and that it idiocy.

So, someone that disagrees with you, and holds an alternate view on the subject, is an "idiot"?

Wow, DejaVu, I feel like I am back on Facebook where I just got called an "idiot gun owner" by a Liberal anti gunner.

 

[Hammerhead]

I know the video isn't from Indiana and yes, there are some "idiots" on here that advocate not showing a LTCH to any LEO and that it idiocy.

I don't believe that anyone here so far has advocated NOT showing a Larry when asked. I think most of the discussion is the idea of not showing your ID when stopped for carrying, when you are only required to prove, via Larry, that you are a legal carrier.

What you might be confusing the not showing the Larry with the idea that you need not possess your Larry on you while you are carrying. This is now no longer codified in the law, which confuses some people still.

Two scenarios here require two different responses. Carrying and possessing your Larry, just show your Larry. This stops further questioning, no ID required. Carrying and not possessing your Larry, you must somehow prove that you are legal. Probably are going to be required to ID yourself somehow. Either you are eventually going to have to produce your Larry, you are going to have to ID verbally, or you are going to have to ID via ID. This might happen as you are being booked into the 3 Hots and a Cot Hotel.

You are not required to ID either verbally or with ID for carrying, as it is neither an infraction or ordinance violation, but is a misdemeanor (or a felony with certain circumstances) without being properly licensed. And yes, once you have proven your legal ability to carry, the record of arrest and all that follows is destroyed.

If you wish to follow the law, you should probably expect some type of issue even if it's resolved later. If you wish to follow the law and provide protection from those types of issues, you should present your Larry to stop the hassle before it starts (or to protect you when the hassle escalates). If you wish to retain your rights, you should keep your other personal papers your business when it's not required by law.

If you have no problem with relinquishing your rights and desire to hand over your ID, your Larry, a blood sample, and psychological history when interacting with a LEO who only legally requires your Larry, then that's your business. Just don't expect those of us who desire to retain our rights and keep from having an over-reaching intrusion forced upon us to do the same.

No, this isn't directed at any one person specifically.