Right to bear arms!

domer76 said:
Better reread your own citation, asswipe. From your source, douchebag.

"At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time"

"Five states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.

Fourteen states grant police authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond:

In Montana, police “may request” identifying information;

In 12 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police “may demand” identifying information;

In Colorado, police “may require” identifying information of a person.

Identifying information varies, but typically includes

Name, address, and an explanation of the person’s actions;
In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if available (Colorado).
Arizona’s law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s “true full name”.
Nevada’s law, which requires a person to “identify himself or herself”, apparently requires only that the person state his or her name.

In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.

Seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.

Virginia makes it a nonjailable misdemeanor to refuse to identify oneself to a conservator of the peace when one is at the scene of a breach of the peace witnessed by that conservator."

Notice, that not once is "identifying oneself" indicate having an ID.
Click to expand...

I noticed that you said there are no laws requiring the carrying of an ID yet you also said that a driver's license, a form of ID, is required when driving. If NO laws require it how can a law require it?

Fucking retard.
 
domer76 said:
Better reread your own citation, asswipe. From your source, douchebag.

"At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time"

"Five states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.

Fourteen states grant police authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond:

In Montana, police “may request” identifying information;

In 12 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police “may demand” identifying information;

In Colorado, police “may require” identifying information of a person.

Identifying information varies, but typically includes

Name, address, and an explanation of the person’s actions;
In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if available (Colorado).
Arizona’s law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s “true full name”.
Nevada’s law, which requires a person to “identify himself or herself”, apparently requires only that the person state his or her name.

In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.

Seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.

Virginia makes it a nonjailable misdemeanor to refuse to identify oneself to a conservator of the peace when one is at the scene of a breach of the peace witnessed by that conservator."

Notice, that not once is "identifying oneself" indicate having an ID.
Click to expand...

If the police ask you to prove you're who you say you are, how do you propose doing it?
 
14457321_10208869545469463_6379261283469365147_n.jpg
 
CFM said:
I noticed that you said there are no laws requiring the carrying of an ID yet you also said that a driver's license, a form of ID, is required when driving. If NO laws require it how can a law require it?

Fucking retard.
Click to expand...

WHEN DRIVING, you ignorant douchebag. How many times does that need to be repeated for it to sink in? I need no ID, as indicated in any number of citations, when out in the general public.

Goddam. Trying to get a simple point across to you Special Olympics washouts is really a chore.
 
domer76 said:
WHEN DRIVING, you ignorant douchebag. How many times does that need to be repeated for it to sink in? I need no ID, as indicated in any number of citations, when out in the general public.

Goddam. Trying to get a simple point across to you Special Olympics washouts is really a chore.
Click to expand...

You said there were NO laws requiring having an ID. You now say there when you're driving, you do. If there are situations where you do, to say there are NO laws requiring it is incorrect.

Not my fault you're a stupid fuckhead that hides like the little coward he is.
 
CFM said:
You said there were NO laws requiring having an ID. You now say there when you're driving, you do. If there are situations where you do, to say there are NO laws requiring it is incorrect.

Not my fault you're a stupid fuckhead that hides like the little coward he is.
Click to expand...

^The stupidest motherfucker I've ever encountered
 
domer76 said:
And I've appreciated that. Really, I have. The last time, however, you were a little heavy on the teeth and didn't swallow. Kinda disappointing.
Click to expand...

^This folks is a desperate individual that has to change another person's post to try and cover for the easy piece his wife is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top