Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbitrary  I'm coming in here late obviously but to chime in on the checking ID aspect of it - A few years ago the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer asking you for your ID for whatever reason they want constituted only a minimal invasion of privacy and was thus ok.
So you, walking down the street on a sunny Tuesday afternoon to go by a soda, depending on your state, a cop can stop you and ask to see your ID.
Given that has been ruled as acceptable, asking to see someone's ID to purchase a firearm is probably going to be upheld under similar grounds (i.e. minimal invasion with positives that outweigh the extremely small negatives). |
sunder...somewhere...there is a palm without its face.
for all the bitching and moaning i hear constantly from people "we dont need lawyers"...."people should be able to follow the laws on their own because laws should be clear"....
how...HOW do you escape reality? do you ever bother reading the cases? ever?
HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY.
"In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979), the Court invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop was not based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity. See id., at 51—52. Absent that factual basis for detaining the defendant, the Court held, the risk of “arbitrary and abusive police practices” was too great and the stop was impermissible. Id., at 52."
TLDR version: you are completely wrong, stop and identify's need reasonable suspicion.