Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
dealing with the police during a traffic stop
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 2133443" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>It is a vaguely-written law, and no one can be sure exactly how a court would interpret it. It could be argued that it is intended to disallow inspection/disarmament unless there is RS that a crime is being committed involving THE GUN. It could be argued that it is just restating the current Supreme Court precedent on searches and seizures. Or it could be seen as just making sure that the SDA isn't ever interpreted as specifically granting police authority to inspect any firearm carried pursuant to the license during any traffic stop, which is the way some states' carry laws are. </p><p></p><p>Just under Supreme Court precedent, the warrantless seizure of property can only occur in a limited set of circumstances. In the case of a gun, it would typically be justified as a <em>Terry</em> search, which requires reasonable articulable suspicion that you are both <em>armed</em> (which is a gimme in this case) and <em>dangerous</em> (which is not met unless supported by reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that you are, which typically isn't present for a normal traffic stop).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 2133443, member: 4235"] It is a vaguely-written law, and no one can be sure exactly how a court would interpret it. It could be argued that it is intended to disallow inspection/disarmament unless there is RS that a crime is being committed involving THE GUN. It could be argued that it is just restating the current Supreme Court precedent on searches and seizures. Or it could be seen as just making sure that the SDA isn't ever interpreted as specifically granting police authority to inspect any firearm carried pursuant to the license during any traffic stop, which is the way some states' carry laws are. Just under Supreme Court precedent, the warrantless seizure of property can only occur in a limited set of circumstances. In the case of a gun, it would typically be justified as a [I]Terry[/I] search, which requires reasonable articulable suspicion that you are both [I]armed[/I] (which is a gimme in this case) and [I]dangerous[/I] (which is not met unless supported by reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that you are, which typically isn't present for a normal traffic stop). [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
dealing with the police during a traffic stop
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom