Superlite27
Regular Member
Recently, in a case in North Carolina, a man named Nathaniel Black won an appeal because he was detained after another person in the group he was with was open carrying. However, the authorities argued that he was never detained until he tried to leave and refused to stop walking away. After his leaving gave them probable cause, he was searched and found to be in possession of a firearm as a felon.
The court said "Phooey", and ruled that he was considered detained upon several occurrences: 1) When a significant number of officers (7, I believe) surrounded the group, and when officers 2) took his ID.
They ruled that a person could reasonable assume they were not free to leave when surrounded, or their ID was taken.
This leads me to my question:
Here in Missouri, we do not have full pre-emption. CCW is fully pre-empted by the state, and local ordinances cannot govern it. However, openly crrying is not pre-empted (until HB 486 is signed by the governor, or his veto is overridden sometime this year) and municipalities are able to regulate it in any manner. 90% of Missouri is perfectly fine to OC without a permit, and several cities have outright banned it.
However, we also have places that, strangely enough, require a licence to Carry a Concealed Weapon (CCW) in order to lawfully openly carry.
How does this mesh with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that siezure of ID is considered detainment? It is unlawful to detain me simply because I'm openly carrying a firearm. However, in an area where I'm required to have a CCW in order to lawfully do so, wouldn't an officer requesting my CCW upon observing me OC be exactly that? I've been asked for ID several times when OC'ing and have always complied because I figured since a CCW was required, they could lawfully request it.
However, I'm beginning to think that drivers licences are required to operate cars on highways, and it's illegal for them to detain motorists simply to confirm possession of a valid driver's licence, therefore, I might just attempt refusing to be detained when asked for a CCW if I should encounter that request in the future.
Make sense, or am I off base?
The court said "Phooey", and ruled that he was considered detained upon several occurrences: 1) When a significant number of officers (7, I believe) surrounded the group, and when officers 2) took his ID.
They ruled that a person could reasonable assume they were not free to leave when surrounded, or their ID was taken.
This leads me to my question:
Here in Missouri, we do not have full pre-emption. CCW is fully pre-empted by the state, and local ordinances cannot govern it. However, openly crrying is not pre-empted (until HB 486 is signed by the governor, or his veto is overridden sometime this year) and municipalities are able to regulate it in any manner. 90% of Missouri is perfectly fine to OC without a permit, and several cities have outright banned it.
However, we also have places that, strangely enough, require a licence to Carry a Concealed Weapon (CCW) in order to lawfully openly carry.
How does this mesh with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that siezure of ID is considered detainment? It is unlawful to detain me simply because I'm openly carrying a firearm. However, in an area where I'm required to have a CCW in order to lawfully do so, wouldn't an officer requesting my CCW upon observing me OC be exactly that? I've been asked for ID several times when OC'ing and have always complied because I figured since a CCW was required, they could lawfully request it.
However, I'm beginning to think that drivers licences are required to operate cars on highways, and it's illegal for them to detain motorists simply to confirm possession of a valid driver's licence, therefore, I might just attempt refusing to be detained when asked for a CCW if I should encounter that request in the future.
Make sense, or am I off base?
Last edited: