Whats the point in having a license...

[Meatcircus]

... if it's considered unconstitutional for a LEO or other to ask to see them?

Not to be misinterpreted as an attempt to flame, but I have been lurking on a lot of threads where this comes up and I'm not sure why the animosity exists.

The comic below was sent in a pro-Arizona email reguarding the anti-immigration laws. It seems to me that this as well pertains to being asked to verify a LTCF when asked. More often than not the sentiment is that one should not have to show it.

It makes sense to me that if I go through the trouble to legally obtain an LTCF and lawfully practice the right, I shouldn't have a problem proving so.

Thanks in advance for your opinions =)

[Philbert]

... if it's considered unconstitutional for a LEO or other to ask to see them?

Not to be misinterpreted as an attempt to flame, but I have been lurking on a lot of threads where this comes up and I'm not sure why the animosity exists.

The comic below was sent in a pro-Arizona email reguarding the anti-immigration laws. It seems to me that this as well pertains to being asked to verify a LTCF when asked. More often than not the sentiment is that one should not have to show it.

It makes sense to me that if I go through the trouble to legally obtain an LTCF and lawfully practice the right, I shouldn't have a problem proving so.

Thanks in advance for your opinions =)

Can a police officer pull you over and ask for your DL just because he feels like it? If not, then why should an LTCF be different?

Nobody is saying an LEO can never demand to see an LTCF, or a DL, just that there has to be a lawful reason for the demand.

[Adam-12]

... if it's considered unconstitutional for a LEO or other to ask to see them?

The statute is unclear; it appears that LEOs are allowed to demand your LTCF any time they want to. The statute doesn't say what constitutes a "lawful demand."

Ignoring that for the moment, though, carrying concealed or in a vehicle (or a couple other ways defined in the statute) is illegal unless you have a LTCF. When a cop demands your LTCF, he's asking you to prove that you aren't committing a crime. The way our legal system works, cops can't just ask random people to prove they're not committing crimes: the cop has to have at least a reasonable, articulable suspicion that you are committing a crime before he can start detaining, searching, seizing, etc. So demanding your LTCF is no different than seeing you with cash and demanding proof that it isn't stolen or drug money.

[tlgpa]

... if it's considered unconstitutional for a LEO or other to ask to see them?

When has it become unconstitutional? A LEO can ask to see them upon lawful demand. What constitutes lawful damand is the debateable and possibly unconstitutional part.

[Meatcircus]

The way our legal system works, cops can't just ask random people to prove they're not committing crimes: the cop has to have at least a reasonable, articulable suspicion that you are committing a crime before he can start detaining, searching, seizing, etc. So demanding your LTCF is no different than seeing you with cash and demanding proof that it isn't stolen or drug money.

Random stopping and questioning aside:

I see what you did with your example, but a license isn't needed to have cash visible in your car. I would assume it's perfectly natural for an LEO ask to see a LTCF if a pistol is visible in your car.

[Meatcircus]

Can a police officer pull you over and ask for your DL just because he feels like it? If not, then why should an LTCF be different?

Nobody is saying an LEO can never demand to see an LTCF, or a DL, just that there has to be a lawful reason for the demand.

Thanks Philbert, but I'm not talking about a LEO pulling you over for no reason, demanding your papers. That's clearly shady.

What I'm talking about is the "don't show" sentiment that I've noticed in my limited participation here on the boards. I'm just wondering if I have the wrong idea.

[Philbert]

Thanks Philbert, but I'm not talking about a LEO pulling you over for no reason, demanding your papers. That's clearly shady.

What I'm talking about is the "don't show" sentiment that I've noticed in my limited participation here on the boards. I'm just wondering if I have the wrong idea.

I think if you read the context of the "don't show" sentiments, it often involves LEOs showing up and demanding to see an LTCF just because a person is carrying. Which is kind of like demanding to see a DL just because a person is driving.

I have some sympathy for both sides since the law is not well defined.

[Adam-12]

I see what you did with your example, but a license isn't needed to have cash visible in your car. I would assume it's perfectly natural for an LEO ask to see a LTCF if a pistol is visible in your car.

They do it, if that's what you mean by "natural," but you need a license to drive and they don't ask you if you have one. If they see a gun, you might be carrying it without a license. But "might" doesn't mean anything: a cop must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that you ARE carrying without a license before he can detain, search or seize. Not "might be." Are.

[electronics]

Random stopping and questioning aside:

I see what you did with your example, but a license isn't needed to have cash visible in your car. I would assume it's perfectly natural for an LEO ask to see a LTCF if a pistol is visible in your car.

Police can ask for a lot of things. What they can legally take is another. Just carrying in a car is not RAS, as just driving is not RAS since these activities are both legal given licensing. I think police have more latitude during a traffic stop since the officer witnessing you break a traffic law is their RAS, but I'm not sure how that affects their ability to demand to see your LTCF if they pull you over and you are OCing. They can certainly, at that point, demand to see your driver's license and registration.

[Azzy]

Because, in that cartoon, only one of those you can say "No, you may not" and walk away and take your business elsewhere.