ID and carry?

[cycleguy2300]

Required to show ID or not, my experience has shown it doesn't end well to argue with the officer.

Your mileage may vary.

Just make sure you are right. You don't have to be a jerk to assert your rights.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[wittynitwit]

SCOTUS has ruled that demanding a person to identify themselves equivocates to a search and so a person may not lie, but is not required to provide name, birthday or address until arrested.

There is some nuance, with regards to certain permited behaviors (driving carrying a gun), but for 99% of interactions this is the case.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Driving, and carrying a gun would not be "permitted behavior" it would be favored as a right. You do not need a permit, as long as it is done lawfully would be no different than having a coca cola in your cup holder. Unless you mean it in the sense of a permitted possessor vs prohibited possessor. At which point I think the same argument applies, that carrying would bear no changes in how something is handled. No different than medical Marijuana in med card states.

 

[wittynitwit]

Hello and welcome

Thanks!!

 

[BRD@66]

I'd argue that Terry stops are pretty gray. You don't have to be violating the law for a law enforcement encounter to be legal. Anything found amounting to a crime would be considered justified. I don't necessarily agree with the how those facts were established, but they are emblazoned in law.

Yeah, I can see that.

 

[majormadmax]

Driving, and carrying a gun would not be "permitted behavior" it would be favored as a right...

Show me where driving is a "right"...

 

[Tnhawk]

Driving, and carrying a gun would not be "permitted behavior" it would be favored as a right. You do not need a permit, as long as it is done lawfully would be no different than having a coca cola in your cup holder. Unless you mean it in the sense of a permitted possessor vs prohibited possessor. At which point I think the same argument applies, that carrying would bear no changes in how something is handled. No different than medical Marijuana in med card states.

In most states driving is not a right but a privilege according to their state laws. Violate them enough and a Judge will remove that privilege.

 

[Coiled]

Yeah, I can see that.

He has stated his opinion with tact & respect, nothing wrong with that.

Welcome wittynitwit.

 

[Texasgordo]

Instantly made me think of the potato joke.

Wut

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Wut

A man goes to the beach...​

...and he sets himself up to show off his new beach bod. A few women glance his way, but none strike up a conversation. He looks a little ways down the beach to see lots of women around an older guy who is nowhere near as chiseled as him.
As the crowd disperses, the man approaches his competition and asks the older man what his secret is.
"Sure, I'll tell you! It's real easy. First thing I do before stepping out onto the beach is put a potato in my Speedo. It's a real eye catcher, if you know what I mean!"
Seeing the older man's success, he decides to give it a try. The next morning he stops at the market and buys the biggest potato he could find and heads off to the beach. He sets himself up like the day before and puts the potato in his Speedo, but now even less women are glancing at him. Some are even making comments under their breath.
Confused, the man finds the older man from the day before and asks what gives.
"I did it just like you said, stuffed the potato in my Speedo and everything!"
The older man shakes his head in disgust.
"You idiot! You're supposed to put the potato in the FRONT!"

 

[wittynitwit]

Argue away. What is illegal about lawful carry in a lawful place?

An officer could argue that they saw an openly carried firearm using a Terry stop to initiate contact to ensure someone is a lawfully carrying

In most states driving is not a right but a privilege according to their state laws. Violate them enough and a Judge will remove that privilege.

We call it the right to bare arms not the privilege to bare arms. Violate firearms laws enough and a judge will remove that right... a judge's actions have no bearing on an items interpretation as a privilege or a law. People mischaracterize driving as the issue in the right vs privilege argument, when in actuality its driving on a public roadway. You can still drive anywhere that is private property. Just can't use those tax funded roads.... when you split hairs on rights vs privileges, what you start to find is that courts have muddied those waters by restricting rights and treating them as revocable privilege. Just my .02 on the matter. And when accounting for inflation that don't all and all that much anyway.

 

[wittynitwit]

Show me where driving is a "right"...

Show me anywhere that the government denies it as a right and provides a separate delineation for it.

 

[Coiled]

Driving is NOT a right, plain and simple.

Driving Privilege Reciprocity | Department of Public Safety

www.dps.texas.gov

Now I believe you are arguing just for the sake of, not a good strategy.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Show me where driving is a "right"...

Show me where it isnt.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Driving, and carrying a gun would not be "permitted behavior" it would be favored as a right. You do not need a permit, as long as it is done lawfully would be no different than having a coca cola in your cup holder. Unless you mean it in the sense of a permitted possessor vs prohibited possessor. At which point I think the same argument applies, that carrying would bear no changes in how something is handled. No different than medical Marijuana in med card states.

A license is a permit...

It shouldnt be a permitted activity, but it is for now

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

An officer could argue that they saw an openly carried firearm using a Terry stop to initiate contact to ensure someone is a lawfully carrying

What does TPC 46.02 say about that?

 

[MountainGirl]

An officer could argue that they saw an openly carried firearm using a Terry stop to initiate contact to ensure someone is a lawfully carrying

We call it the right to bare arms not the privilege to bare arms. Violate firearms laws enough and a judge will remove that right... a judge's actions have no bearing on an items interpretation as a privilege or a law. People mischaracterize driving as the issue in the right vs privilege argument, when in actuality its driving on a public roadway. You can still drive anywhere that is private property. Just can't use those tax funded roads.... when you split hairs on rights vs privileges, what you start to find is that courts have muddied those waters by restricting rights and treating them as revocable privilege. Just my .02 on the matter. And when accounting for inflation that don't all and all that much anyway.

Generally speaking, and only by custom, it's the right to traverse on a public roadway; not specifically in a vehicle. There is no codified 'right' to be given a license to drive - as far as I'm aware.

And as we're splitting hairs - 2A does not give us a right to bear arms. That right is unalienable, and needs no codification. Arguing that it does (i.e., misunderstanding the Second Amendment) has muddied many waters.

And, welcome to TGT. Have you done an Intro thread yet?

Introductions

Introduce yourself!

texasguntalk.com

 

[BRD@66]

......

Now I believe you are arguing just for the sake of, not a good strategy.

Ha!

 

[toddnjoyce]

….Now I believe you are arguing just for the sake of, not a good strategy.

The username gave it away.

 

[Coiled]

No more than Coiled.

 

[Coiled]

Ha!

Arggg!