US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment

[Tim May]

On Jan 11, 2004, at 2:12 PM, bgt wrote:

> On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote:
>> I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the
>> U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are
>> driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery.
>
> Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for
> a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that
> person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a
> a crime.

Duh. Yes, "arrests" are allowed, and have been in all states and in all 
territories since the beginning of things. The alternative to what you 
say is that all would remain free until their actual conviction and 
sentencing.


>
> I'm not aware of any laws that specifically require a person to
> actually carry ID, but when I was stopped in NV several years ago,
> walking back to my home from a nearby grocery store at about 3am,
> supposedly because a 7-11 nearby had just been robbed, I was told
> that if I did not present a valid state ID I would be arrested,
> taken to the precinct HQ, fingerprinted, and held until I could
> be positively ID'd.

There are driver's licenses, for driving. And there are passports, for 
entering the U.S. (and other countries, but we don't care about that 
issue here). Those neither driving nor attempting to enter the U.S. 
need carry no such pieces of documentation. There is no "national ID," 
nor even "state ID."

Period.

Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego.

--Tim May
"As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone
  with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later
  convinces himself." -- David Friedman