US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment

[bgt]

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:07, Tim May wrote:
> 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 

Perhaps I wasn't very clear. That is (in many states, probably
not all), a cop may stop (detain) someone on "reasonable suspicion",
but it would still be illegal to arrest the person (since this would
require "probably cause").  In these states, at this point the person 
is required by law to identify himself, and in some states even to
provide proof of identification.  If the person cannot or will not do
this, it is legal in those states (though as we know, blatantly
unconstitutional) to further detain or even arrest the person until
their identity can be determined.

Nevada's version of this has been ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth
Circuit and the case is still pending in the US Supreme Court.  

> need carry no such pieces of documentation. There is no "national ID," 
> nor even "state ID."
> 
> Period.

You must mean /mandatory/ "state ID".  Every state I've lived in have 
State ID's that are (voluntarily) issued to residents that can't get 
or don't want a driver's license.  All of these states grant their ID
the same status as a driver's license for identification purposes
(anywhere that accepts driver's license as valid ID must also accept 
the state ID).  

> Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego.

(Thanks Steve for the links).  The Lawson case appears to be another 
example of the Supreme Court abdicating their responsibilities.  There
were no fourth amendment objections to CA's law in their decision.  
The Court said the law was unconstitutional because it was not
specific enough, leaving too much discretion to the cop about what
satisfies the identification requirement, when of course they should
have ruled that the identification requirement itself is
unconstitutional.  There were no real objections to the principle 
behind the law, which is a damn shame.  The closest I could find 
was in the dissent:
    
"Of course, if the statute on its face violates the Fourth or Fifth
Amendment--and I express no views about that question--the Court would
be justified in striking it down. But the majority apparently cannot
bring itself to take this course."

--bgt