Clarity on Req't to provide your Permit? Thoughts on drivers license.

[bennor]

Not to drag this too far off topic and while the discussion deals with apparently carry outside of a car; for those who don't know, if your "operating or in charge of any motor vehicle", you do have to show/surrender your driver's "license, registration and insurance identification card" when "requested".

Sec. 14-217. Operator to give name and address and show or surrender license, registration and insurance identification card when requested
http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dlsurs/sur/htm/chap248.htm#Sec14-217.htm

 

[dcmdon]

I agree, but this is not a relevant concept. There needs to be RAS for the Terry stop in the first place which is what this thread is about.

I do see where my wording may not have been 100% though. I think I have corrected it.

But again, the law is CRYSTAL CLEAR in that unless you are driving a car when stopped, you DO NOT have to provide a drivers license EVER.

The only item up for debate is the need to show a pistol permit.

 

[Rich B]

Not to drag this too far off topic and while the discussion deals with apparently carry outside of a car; for those who don't know, if your "operating or in charge of any motor vehicle", you do have to show/surrender your driver's "license, registration and insurance identification card" when "requested".

Sec. 14-217. Operator to give name and address and show or surrender license, registration and insurance identification card when requested
http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dlsurs/sur/htm/chap248.htm#Sec14-217.htm

This does not in any way negate the requirement for a proper Terry stop using RAS.

Also notice that a parallel law for permits does not exist.

 

[Rich B]

But again, the law is CRYSTAL CLEAR in that unless you are driving a car when stopped, you DO NOT have to provide a drivers license EVER.

Really? From what I see, the 'law' you seem to be indicating towards is the ruling from Terry v Ohio. That is the same standard being applied to OC across the country.

The only item up for debate is the need to show a pistol permit.

What debate is there? There is no statute stating you must show your permit on demand. There is no RAS in the simple act of having a legal, holstered firearm and not acting in any criminal manner.

People like to say there is a debate, but so far, I have yet to see one in this thread.

Is anyone arguing that there is a statute that requires you to show your permit without RAS?

Is anyone arguing that there is RAS for someone having a properly holstered firearm on them?

 

[dcmdon]

Exactly right. Its well established that you do not have to show ID to any LE.

The only grey area I refer to re pistol permit has to do with the fact CT law does state that you need to carry your PP with you when carrying a handgun.

Frankly, I'm not prepared to go "to the mat" if questioned about a PP. But I am willing to refuse to provide a drivers license, and have already.

While shooting on private property, we've been confronted by LEOs who got reports of gunfire. When asked for ID I refused. (We only had shotguns with us).

When shooting handguns on the same private property I caved when asked for a PP.

Don

 

[Rich B]

The only grey area I refer to re pistol permit has to do with the fact CT law does state that you need to carry your PP with you when carrying a handgun.

I object to your wording of 'grey area'. Your hesitation does not constitute 'grey area' in the law or in reality.

 

[dcmdon]

Rich,
If you didn't have other things to do that day, would you have you refused to provide a PP and DL to the Old Saybrook Police the day you were detained?

I understand that real life obligations sometimes make it untimely to make a stand. I'm just trying to get a read on the difference between what you are saying and what you did.

Seriously, no flame intended.

Don

 

[Rich B]

Rich,
If you didn't have other things to do that day, would you have you refused to provide a PP and DL to the Old Saybrook Police the day you were detained?

As I have stated before, I made a judgment call based on a couple facts.

1) They already had me detained. We already know the outcome if I had said 'no'. Arrest for interfering with an officer. Would it have been dismissed? Almost definitely.

2) Starbucks has a national policy of allowing all lawful behavior (OC), so I had to assume that once the police ascertained what I was doing was legal, I would be able to go finish my coffee and sit inside.

3) I was detained in full view of a packed Starbucks. I decided it was important for people that may not understand the situation to see me emerge victorious. Being arrested is not my goal, and it does nothing to help the cause.

4) I already had enough in the recording to make Old Saybrook (SGT Gardner in particular) sound not only silly but angry, abusive and criminal.

5) I am not convinced refusing to ID myself would have made a better situation for me or us right now.

I am very aware lots of people want to see me have to battle the charge if I don't surrender my ID, and I would love to as well because I am confident I would win, however what would I win? I am not likely to make money back, and I am not guaranteed even to make my lawyer's fees back. The police are very aware of this of course. That is a whole lot of work (and potentially cost) for me, with nothing to gain for myself.

I have called on the CCDL to assist me in setting up a legal fund to help get our ~900 members active in these suits and to make it known that if you arrest or harass a citizen in this state for lawful activity, you are going to catch hell for it.

I have yet to get any kind of affirmative response from the CCDL. I am hoping this will change now that the elections mess is over and we need a new strategy. We will see how it goes.

Failing this, I will need to set it up myself. I have funds to defend myself, but I do not have funds to wage the wars that need to be fought in the courtrooms of this state for the permit holders of the state. I think it is reasonable to insist that we all find a way to bond together to fight this fight together.

 

[dcmdon]

That all makes perfect sense. Thanks for the insight.

 

[dcmdon]

Rich,
I finally got around to listening to your audio. You stated at one point that "If I had a permit on me I'd show it to you". Did you not have your pistol permit on you??

Don

 

[Rich B]

Rich,
I finally got around to listening to your audio. You stated at one point that "If I had a permit on me I'd show it to you". Did you not have your pistol permit on you??

They seized my permit during their detainment.

 

[emsjeep]

There is no RAS in the simple act of having a legal, holstered firearm and not acting in any criminal manner.

Citation, reasoning, anything? Very dangerous comment to make without anything to back it up.

 

[Rich B]

Citation, reasoning, anything? Very dangerous comment to make without anything to back it up.

I can't prove a negative. If you feel there is RAS for a person with a properly holstered firearm, cite the statute.

 

[emsjeep]

I can't prove a negative. If you feel there is RAS for a person with a properly holstered firearm, cite the statute.

No, but you can make a reasoned argument...I know when you started doing this you needed an answer to that question...if your answer is just, "It doesn't say so in a statute," thats not quite enough to cut it. Proving a negative is impossible, sure, but it requires more detailed work than anything on the other side. You make a proof, a reasoned argument, by ruling out all other possibilities...not by simply looking to statute and saying, "Not there, good to go!" RAS in various jurisdictions is rarely codified in statute anyway. The point being, a naked assertion, even in the case of something impossible to prove definitively, is relatively useless. If nothing else, what was your reasoning when you approached the question?

 

[Rich B]

No, but you can make a reasoned argument...I know when you started doing this you needed an answer to that question...if your answer is just, "It doesn't say so in a statute," thats not quite enough to cut it. Proving a negative is impossible, sure, but it requires more detailed work than anything on the other side. You make a proof, a reasoned argument, by ruling out all other possibilities...not by simply looking to statute and saying, "Not there, good to go!" RAS in various jurisdictions is rarely codified in statute anyway. The point being, a naked assertion, even in the case of something impossible to prove definitively, is relatively useless. If nothing else, what was your reasoning when you approached the question?

I have stated my reasoning plenty of times here. If you have something to add to the conversation, go ahead. If not, I don't know how to help you.

RAS requires an officer to have a specific and articulable fact that gives them reasonable suspicion a crime is occurring, about to occur or has occurred. It cannot be a hunch or speculation.

So I ask (again), what crime do you feel could be used to justify RAS when a properly holstered firearm is on the side of an otherwise law abiding citizen walking down the street?

 

[emsjeep]

I have stated my reasoning plenty of times here. If you have something to add to the conversation, go ahead. If not, I don't know how to help you.

RAS requires an officer to have a specific and articulable fact that gives them reasonable suspicion a crime is occurring, about to occur or has occurred. It cannot be a hunch or speculation.

So I ask (again), what crime do you feel could be used to justify RAS when a properly holstered firearm is on the side of an otherwise law abiding citizen walking down the street?

Ok, if you are working off of a federal standard based on Terry, then I can tell you, and prove unequivocally, that states have interpreted Terry differently as supplying RAS in the case of an openly carried firearm. It took Pennsylvania nearly 30 years to affirm that, in their jurisdiction, Terry did in fact apply to this situation (and they don't license open carry). The point being, Terry is not the be all and end all of this question, in other states (some without license requirements) the courts and/or legislature have had to address the issue specifically and for decades they elected not to apply Terry under the circumstances of open carry. Now their persuasive authority is nice, but by no means binding. In any event, this is fairly persuasive evidence of the fact that open carry is not implicitly protected just by Terry on a federal level and may require special intervention by each state.

 

[Rich B]

In any event, this is fairly persuasive evidence of the fact that open carry is not implicitly protected just by Terry on a federal level and may require special intervention by each state.

This doesn't change anything I have said. Nowhere have I stated (quite to the opposite really) that this won't be abused. I know that first hand. However, it is clear by the standards of Terry v Ohio, that it is an abuse.

Continuing to state repeatedly that this is an issue for the courts doesn't add anything to the discussion.

 

[emsjeep]

This doesn't change anything I have said. Nowhere have I stated (quite to the opposite really) that this won't be abused. I know that first hand. However, it is clear by the standards of Terry v Ohio, that it is an abuse.

Continuing to state repeatedly that this is an issue for the courts doesn't add anything to the discussion.

But the abuse is the standard of law. The issue at the heart of the RAS discussion is what conduct and ultimate legal process is to be expected, not the ideal. People shouldn't hit the street OC'ing believing that Terry is the standard and that it is the standard under which they will be treated. Terry should be interpreted to protect open carry, thats great, but it, at this point, in the State of Connecticut, is not going to prevent a detention, search or arrest.

 

[Rich B]

But the abuse is the standard of law. The issue at the heart of the RAS discussion is what conduct and ultimate legal process is to be expected, not the ideal. People shouldn't hit the street OC'ing believing that Terry is the standard and that it is the standard under which they will be treated. Terry should be interpreted to protect open carry, thats great, but it, at this point, in the State of Connecticut, is not going to prevent a detention, search or arrest.

I see, so you bring us all back to the original faulty logic of "Don't OC because you might be detained or arrested for OC in CT.".

I am not about to cease lawful behavior because of the threat of abusive government officials detaining or arresting me.

The law is already on our side.

 

[emsjeep]

I see, so you bring us all back to the original faulty logic of "Don't OC because you might be detained or arrested for OC in CT.".

I am not about to cease lawful behavior because of the threat of abusive government officials detaining or arresting me.

The law is already on our side.

No no no no no. Do it, I applaud you for doing it. I did it in PA, nothing wrong with it at all. Practice your right, enjoy it and challenge the system and the unconstitutional interpretation as a consequence or purposefully. An arrest, even an unlawful one that is later thrown out has major implications for my career though...at least at this point...and for other people as well. Individuals going out in public open carrying need to be aware that they can be lawfully detained maybe even arrested incident to their lawful behavior even though they will be vindicated in the end. That is the only point I want to make.

That is, OC, but be aware that you may be lawfully detained or arrested even though you will be proven right in the end.