This issue of police demanding ID absent reasonable suspicion of some crime is coming up more and more, and now even **vehicle drivers** and gun carriers around the country are fighting back and refusing to plea out of obstruction charges for balking at aggressive and unwarranted police ID demands.

While we have Hawkins v. Commonwealth already on our side in PA, this case from Wisconsin can be cited as further persuasive authority that even gun carriers need not present carry licenses absent reasonable suspicion for the police demand.

http://www.kenoshanews.com/article_c...cleNum=3035584

State v. Peters, 2008 WL 2185754 (Wis. App. I Dist. 2008) ("We turn first to the investigative traffic stop, often called a Terry FN2 stop. The law of investigative stops allows police officers to stop a person when they have less than probable cause. State v. Waldner, 206 Wis.2d 51, 59, 556 N.W.2d 681 (1996). To justify an investigatory seizure, the police must have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific articulable facts and reasonable inferences from those facts, that an individual is violating or has violated the law. State v. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25, ¶ 8, 260 Wis.2d 406, 659 N.W.2d 394. “The question of what constitutes reasonable suspicion is a common sense test: under all the facts and circumstances present, what would a reasonable police officer reasonably suspect in light of his or her training and experience.” State v. Young, 212 Wis.2d 417, 424, 569 N.W.2d 84 (Ct.App.1997).").