Carrying Concealed Without ID

[MoscowMike]

Today in Idaho you are no longer required to have a permit to carry concealed, if you are over 21 and not otherwise barred from owning a firearm.

In the US, you are normally not required to carry ID when going about your business. If I understand it correctly you have to identify yourself to a police officer when asked, but unless you are driving a car, which requires a drivers license, you don't have to show identification documents or even have one on your person. (Let's ignore the immigration document question)

Concealed weapons permits are another exception in many states. Up to this point I have needed to have the permit with me to show an officer if the question of my carrying comes up.

So - how is an officer supposed to know if you are legally barred from carrying a firearm if you don't have any ID or don't want to show it? I can tell the officer I'm Joe Blank and live on South Summit Street, but if he doesn't have other suspicious behavior to go on, does he have cause to detain me to determine if I am who I say I am, and whether I am legally able to posses a firearm?

Idaho does not require me to reveal that I am carrying when interacting with a law officer, so it is unlikely that the question would come up, but it will for some one.

How has this worked in other states which don't require a permit to carry concealed?



- Mike

 

[pdsmith505]

While Idaho is not in the 4th Circuit, this concept was brought before the 4th in the case United States v. Black.

Cliff notes (please excuse the layman's rendition of the ruling):
Mr. Black was a felon in possession of a concealed firearm. The police discovered this as a result of searching Mr. Black and several others for weapons after they discovered another member of his group legally (North Carolina) carrying a pistol openly. Mr. Black moved to suppress the evidence of his possession because the search was unlawful.

The Fourth Circuit ruled that the search/seizure of Mr. Black was unlawful, and the evidence suppressed.

The part of the ruling that is germane to your question is quoted below:

Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina, which permit its residents to openly carry firearms . . . Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Government contends that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. . . . We are not persuaded. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.

Again, this is in the 4th Circuit, not the 9th where Idaho falls, so it is not binding.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

In the US, you are normally not required to carry ID when going about your business. If I understand it correctly you have to identify yourself to a police officer when asked, but unless you are driving a car, which requires a drivers license, you don't have to show identification documents or even have one on your person. (Let's ignore the immigration document question)

Where, in the USA are you required to carry ID? The only time any documentation is required (as far as I know) is when performing a licensed activity and proof of licensing must be presented in some circumstances.

 

[Red Wind]

It's Friday and it's Happy Hour, but other than driving , it's hard to think of many other circumstances.

The 11 states that require notification upon official contact with the LEO, when carrying, even on foot, come to mind.

 

[Kenneth]

It wouldnt be so hard for a LEO to come up with some probable cause to detain/hassle someone with no ID on them, especially if they had a firearm and no ID on them. How does going out armed with no ID at all even sound like a good idea anyway? What if you have to use your gun?

 

[Red Wind]

Kenneth, there is no Constitutional provision mandating the carrying of ID. When I go out on a mid day jog with no firearms, many times I carry no Wallet/ ID.

It's legal.

 

[Kenneth]

I know and fully understand that its perfectly legal to go out without ID Red Wind, its just not worth the trouble to me to go out without at least a DL and a health insurance card.

 

[Speedo66]

You give Officer Friendly your name and address and very shortly he will have your driver's license picture to compare to you.

 

[MedWheeler]

4thPointofContact askes:

Where, in the USA are you required to carry ID?

..to the OP's

In the US, you are normally not required to carry ID when going about your business.

I don't get the question.

 

[MoscowMike]

Thanks for the info on the 4th circuit. It will be interesting to see where this goes across the country.

While I have never had an officer ask me for ID except while driving I have always figured under other circumstances I would identify myself and politely answer any request for government ID with the answer that I wasn't required to carry it.

Of course sometimes the legal answer may not be the smart one.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

I know and fully understand that its perfectly legal to go out without ID Red Wind, its just not worth the trouble to me to go out without at least a DL and a health insurance card.

You cannot be denied ̶n̶e̶c̶e̶s̶s̶a̶r̶y̶ emergency care/stabilization at any public hospital because you don't have an insurance card. In fact, it's illegal not to provide the same level of care to those with and without insurance upon admission.
For the last decade or so, my driving license has resided in the sun visor of my car (I've had the bad luck to not be able to find my wallet a time or two before which made me late for appointments and work or other stuff). So far, I've never gone anywhere without my driving license being within walking distance of wherever I might need it to buy alcohol or a plane ticket.

In Georgia as of a few years ago, the carrying of a weapons license is treated the same way as the carrying of a driving license with one small exception*.
Both must be in one's immediate possession
Both have a $10 'slap on the wrist' fine for not having it when required if a valid license is produced in court. (It's hardly worth the court's trouble and expense to prosecute such a thing, really.)

*The driving license may ONLY be demanded when one is operating a vehicle and a person may NOT be stopped for the sole purpose of ascertaining his/her weapon licensing status.

 

[TRX]

> Where, in the USA are you required to carry ID?

Try getting through any TSA checkpoint without it.

 

[Kenneth]

How has this worked in other states which don't require a permit to carry concealed?

I don't get the question.

I think what MoscowMike is getting at is along the lines of, can states that allow CCW without a permit require you to carry ID when doing so?

My question would be, if you carry a gun because you might need it, why wouldn't you carry your ID? Because if you ever need to use your gun, you can be sure you will need your ID when the cops arrive.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You cannot be denied necessary health care at any hospital because you don't have an insurance card. In fact, it's illegal not to provide the same level of care to those with and without insurance upon admission....

Cite legal authority for that claim. Indeed, your statement appears to be inaccurate.

1. With regard to a medical emergency the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) does require that any hospital participating in Medicare and that offers emergency services must at least:

   ...provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs....

   
   
2. And I see nothing that would require a private hospital to offer non-emergency care to a medically indigent patient, although a public, governmental or county hospital might be required to do so.
   
   
3. But in neither case does the obligation fall on any hospital -- it only falls on Medicare participating hospitals which provide emergency services, in the case of emergency service, and on public hospitals, in the case of non-emergency service. And with regard to medical emergencies, the hospital is required only to provide care necessary to stabilize the patient.

...For the last decade or so, my driving license has resided in the sun visor of my car...

How is what you do relevant to understanding the law?

...As of a few years ago, the carrying of a weapons license is treated the same way as the carrying of a driving license with one small exception*.
Both must be in one's immediate possession
Both have a $10 'slap on the wrist' fine for not having it when required if a valid license is produced in court. (It's hardly worth the court's trouble and expense to prosecute such a thing, really.)...

Again, cite legal authority. Furthermore, I suspect that the consequences of not having a driver's license with you or not having a carry license with you willvary from State to State.

...a person may NOT be stopped for the sole purpose of ascertaining his/her weapon licensing status.

Cite legal authority.

 

[pdsmith505]

Thanks for the info on the 4th circuit. It will be interesting to see where this goes across the country.

While I have never had an officer ask me for ID except while driving I have always figured under other circumstances I would identify myself and politely answer any request for government ID with the answer that I wasn't required to carry it.

Of course sometimes the legal answer may not be the smart one.

I'm glad that at least the one answer to your actual question was helpful.

 

[pdsmith505]

...a person may NOT be stopped for the sole purpose of ascertaining his/her weapon licensing status.

Cite legal authority.

Am I correct in assuming that the Black ruling from the 4th (mentioned above) would at least be persuasive in this scenario?

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Ciote legal authority for that claim. Indeed, your statement appears to be inaccurate.

I'm unfamiliar with the word "ciote" - can you clarify that?

You might want to review 42 U.S. Code § 1395dd - Examination and treatment for emergency medical conditions and women in labor.

This is a different requirement than Section 1867 of the Social Security Act, Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA).

 

[Frank Ettin]

...does he have cause to detain me to determine if I am who I say I am, and whether I am legally able to posses a firearm?...

I suspect that there will be a lot of sorting out to be done in the various Circuit Courts of Appeal, so there's really no good or simple answer right now.

pdsmith505 very helpfully drew our attention to the Fourth Circuit's decision in United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534. (4th Cir. 2013). Black was later followed in another motion to suppress case, United States v. Robinson (Fourth Circuit, No. 14-4902, 2016). However, the dissent in Robinson suggested that the motion to suppress should not have been granted because certain of the circumstances surrounding the search for a weapon incident to the traffic stop could reasonably cause the officer to have special concerns for his safety.

Cf. the Sixth Circuit Case of Embody v. Ward, 695 F.3d 577 (6th Cir., 2012). That was not a motion to suppress case. Rather it was a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit in which Embody complained the his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was detained for investigation regarding his carrying of a gun in a Tennessee park.

Embody went for a walk in Radnor Lake State Natural Area, near Nashville. He was openly carrying a Draco AK–47 pistol, complete with a 30 round magazine, slung across his chest. The muzzle of the handgun was painted orange.

In response to citizen complaints, Ward, a park ranger, stopped Embody. At issue was whether Embody carrying of the gun was lawful, and that question turned, under Tennessee law, on whether it was a handgun or a rifle. Open carry of a handgun was legal . The question took a while to answer, during which time Embody was detained.

Essentially the Sixth Circuit concluded that given the totality of the circumstances, as more fully described in the decision, the stop and detention of Embody was reasonable, and that, therefore, the stop and detention satisfied the Fourth Amendment.

So where that leaves us is a body of law in one Circuit addressing standards for a search under one set of circumstances, and some law in another Circuit addressing the issue somewhat differently in other circumstances.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Am I correct in assuming that the Black ruling from the 4th (mentioned above) would at least be persuasive in this scenario?

See post 18.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm unfamiliar with the word "ciote"...

Thank you. It was a typo. The word intended was "cite." I've fixed it.

...You might want to review 42 U.S. Code § 1395dd - Examination and treatment for emergency medical conditions and women in labor.

This is a different requirement than Section 1867 of the Social Security Act, Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA).

Nonsense. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act is codified at 42 USC § 1395dd:

Sec. 1867. [42 U.S.C. 1395dd] (a) Medical Screening Requirement.—In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this title) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1)) exists.

(b) Necessary Stabilizing Treatment for Emergency Medical Conditions and Labor.—

(1) In general.—If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this title) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—

(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or

(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c)​

....​

See also 42 U.S.C. 1395dd:

(a) Medical screening requirement

In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists.

(b) Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor

(1) In generalIf any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—

(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or

(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section.

...

...

​

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, § 1867, as added Pub. L. 99–272, title IX, § 9121(b), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 164; amended Pub. L. 99–509, title IX, § 9307(c)(4), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1996;...)

 

[4thPointOfContact]

You cannot be denied necessary health care at any hospital because you don't have an insurance card. In fact, it's illegal not to provide the same level of care to those with and without insurance upon admission....

Cite legal authority for that claim. Indeed, your statement appears to be inaccurate.

With regard to a medical emergency the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) does require that any hospital participating in Medicare and that offers emergency services must at least:

...provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs....

You are correct, I should have specified 'emergency care' rather than 'necessary health care'. I wanted to draw the distinction between voluntary medical procedures and those n̶e̶c̶e̶s̶s̶a̶r̶y̶ for (there I go, using 'necessary' again) emergency, life-saving medical care.

And I see nothing that would require a private hospital to offer non-emergency care to a medically indigent patient, although a public, governmental or county hospital might be required to do so.

But in neither case does the obligation fall on any hospital -- it only falls on Medicare participating hospitals which provide emergency services, in the case of emergency service, and on public hospitals, in the case of non-emergency service. And with regard to medical emergencies, the hospital is required only to provide care necessary to stabilize the patient.

Again, my apologies; I meant emergency care not 'necessary'. Upon further reflection, I stand by my statement as it pertains to having an insurance CARD, as even without the CARD one still has insurance. Losing your wallet (and CARD) to a mugging won't get you denied care at any reputable hospital, they just have to type in a little more information to start the billing process.

...For the last decade or so, my driving license has resided in the sun visor of my car...

How is what you do relevant to understanding the law?

...As of a few years ago, the carrying of a weapons license is treated the same way as the carrying of a driving license with one small exception*.
Both must be in one's immediate possession
Both have a $10 'slap on the wrist' fine for not having it when required if a valid license is produced in court. (It's hardly worth the court's trouble and expense to prosecute such a thing, really.)...

Again, cite legal authority. Furthermore, I suspect that the consequences of not having a driver's license with you or not having a carry license with you will vary from State to State.

I'm sure it will, I should have proof read what I wrote and I'm sure I would have mentioned it was only applicable to Georgia. As to the citation, please see OCGA 40-5-28 and I'm pretty sure any penalties will only apply when operating a vehicle, regardless of the state or anyone's suspicions. I'll happily retract and revise that upon presentation of a citation, of course.

...a person may NOT be stopped for the sole purpose of ascertaining his/her weapon licensing status.

Cite legal authority.
In Georgia, OCGA 16-11-137(b)

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I should have proof read what I wrote and I'm sure I would have mentioned it was only applicable to Georgia....

So your specific comments only apply to Georgia.

In the future, please identify the jurisdiction and cite authority. Details matter, and in discussing legal topics accuracy and precision are important.

 

[Kenneth]

Originally Posted by 4thPointOfContact
...a person may NOT be stopped for the sole purpose of ascertaining his/her weapon licensing status.

Technically correct, however, almost any cop can figure out how to work in a legal pat down if he/she wanted to.

Back to OP's original question.

It is agreed that it is perfectly legal to go about without ID on you unless you are engaging in an activity that requires proof of age and/or proof that you are who you say you are.

In my humble non attorney opinion, that even though you are not required to carry ID with you, and ccw without a permit is legal in your state, there is still a minimum age requirement in order to possess a firearm. So at the very least it would still behoove you to have proof of age on you when carrying a firearm around.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

Are you implying that cops lack honesty and will manufacture 'reasonable suspicion' when none exists? You might as well say they can stop any minority, at any time, if only they can manufacture suspicion.


As for proof of age, I doubt any court is going to agree with an officer's 'suspicion' that a gray haired man might possibly be a freckle faced teen in disguise. As we all learned with Chris Beatty's experience with an ABC officer, "how do I know that's not....." is not 'reasonable suspicion.'

 

[Kenneth]

I'm sure it's just me not getting it. So, what negative legal consequences of having an ID while carrying your firearm are you trying to avoid?
What legal benefits of not having an ID while carrying your firearm are you trying to gain?
What if you have to shoot someone in self defense?
It seems to me that being happy, joyous, free, and unburdened by a little piece of paper with my name and picture on it just isn't worth the potential hassle.