2 LTCH holders arrested

[Titanium_Frost]

The one thing that I'm slightly unclear about with this part of the IC is the "if in the person's possession" portion.

I understand that I can supply (1), but is (2) supposed to supersede (1) if it is in my possession? Otherwise, why would that addendum be necessary.

IANAL

I believe the "or" in between (1) and (2) allow you to choose which you provide becuase all of the same information is available to the LEO regardless of which one you use so it should be a non issue.

 

[Hoosierdood]

No. Name addy and date of birth, if you haven't commited an infraction you do not have to show license.

I also have my DLN memorized, so I don't even have to pull it

So do I.

Count me as the cool kid group, I know mine as well.

I have mine AND my wife's memorized. I win.

 

[Valvestate]

IANAL, but it looks as though it means that you are not specifically required to have it. I think it's to protect people who get pulled over or cited for a minor offense and forgot their wallet/purse from getting a bull**** misdemeanor charge and instead can just tell the LEO who they are. I can see how it could be interpreted the other way though and screw you.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I don't think there's a controversy here of which to use (1) or (2) when you do not have the DL in your possession.

The controversy at hand is over possessing a DL on your person and still insisting that (1) alone satisfies the requirement to ID yourself to authorities. (2) does not generate a requirement to possess your DL on your person at all times. Neither does 35-47-2-1 vis-a-vis DL or LTCH.

Just remember

 

[Valvestate]

Let's put it this way. "Or" means "or". Let's not pull a Clinton here.

 

[Rookie]

 

[Valvestate]

F***ing WoW, really?

Then again that's the first thing I thought of....

 

[Rookie]

I'm in love with her.

 

[CathyInBlue]

It's a joke, really. Just wondering who else has had that thought about that acronym.

 

[Rookie]

Well, that was a let down.

 

[Valvestate]

Google I ANAL and you wont be

 

[Valvestate]

It's a joke, really. Just wondering who else has had that thought about that acronym.

Proooobably almost everyone

 

[Hoosierdood]

Just remember

 

[Titanium_Frost]

See? You don't have to OC to be an attention whore, just post suggestive quotes and pictures on a website made up of 99% cavemen.

 

[stephen87]

I have mine AND my wife's memorized. I win.

I don't have a wife, however I also know serial numbers to my guns and the VIN to my truck that I just sold.

I don't think there's a controversy here of which to use (1) or (2) when you do not have the DL in your possession.

The controversy at hand is over possessing a DL on your person and still insisting that (1) alone satisfies the requirement to ID yourself to authorities. (2) does not generate a requirement to possess your DL on your person at all times. Neither does 35-47-2-1 vis-a-vis DL or LTCH.

Just remember

You would.

 

[Hoosierdood]

See? You don't have to OC to be an attention whore, just post suggestive quotes and pictures on a website made up of 99% cavemen.

Wonder what response I will get to this one then...

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Why does that remind me of Kevin Smith?

 

[CathyInBlue]

OMG! You too?

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Wonder what response I will get to this one then...

Is that Printcraft in a fat suit????

 

[Mackey]

Man, this thread has been jacked up one side and down the other.