I was recently informed that it was possible for police to ask for you weapon after being pulled over to check the serial number on the gun to make sure it isn't stolen. I was just curious if this is the law, or if I can refuse to hand over the firearm if it is an unwarranted or I am not being suspicious. I am a law abiding, tax paying citizen and I really value my constitutional rights. I just don't want police overstepping their authority. Thanks so much, I am very curious on this statue.
This is a tricky area.
First, let me address something in the big picture. If you do a little research you will discover that numerous searches and seizures can be done without warrants. The concept is something called a "warrant clause exception." Hunt those key words and you will find a whole list of circumstances where government can search or seize without a warrant. Some make sense. Others raise your hackles as obvious violations of your rights.
More to your question, there are a series of US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) cases that address guns during temporary seizures of the person. This is the overview. It is not intended to be a definitive declaration of the law. Just a fast overview. Also, I am not a lawyer.
In
Terry v Ohio, about a foot encounter between a possible armed robber and a cop, SCOTUS said that if a cop has reasonable suspicion a person is involved in a crime, the cop could temporarily seize (detain) that person without a warrant to investigate further. And, if the cop had good reason to believe that detainee might be both armed and presently dangerous, then the cop could pat him down and temporarily seize any weapons.
In
PA vs Mimms, a traffic stop case, a later SCOTUS slopped together the two concepts about armed and presently dangerous. Instead of two prongs: 1) armed, and 2) presently dangerous, the court quietly combined the two ideas such that armed = presently dangerous. I say "quietly combined" because the court did not expressly say "we are going to combine these ideas", nor did the court say "the earlier court meant these two ideas are combined". They just up and combined them. According to
Mimms, the possible presence of a gun
is dangerous during a traffic stop. Thus, the court approved a cop temporarily searching for a gun if he reasonably believes one might be present, and seizing it during a traffic stop.
So, while it is obviously bunk that a cop can warrantlessly, temporarily seize a gun during a traffic stop just because he wants to check the serial number for stolen, there is really very little that would prevent it. He is already approved by SCOTUS to temporarily seize the gun for his own safety. Once he's got it, if he can see the serial number, he can run it. (Look up "plain view doctrine").
You can learn more about this here:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Amendment-Resources-Here!!&highlight=inchoate
Of course, it is absurd that a gun during a traffic stop is automatically dangerous. The first and easiest proof of this is that were it true, no cop would ever fail to temporarily seize a gun during a traffic stop. Every gun would get seized every time. The fact we have many, many reports of cops not seizing guns during traffic stops is proof positive that the mere presence of a gun is not in and of itself dangerous.
What is a court going to do? Say that cops (their experts on this subject), who deal with traffic stops all day long are wrong?
