Werz
Regular Member
While researching some other matters, I found a recent federal court of appeals case which I'm sure will "stir the pot." I assume lots of folks won't like it, but nevertheless, it is the law and every bit as authoritative as United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2013):
Bottom Line:
(Note that the Florida statute applied in Lewis - Fla. Stat. s 790.01 - begins with a general prohibition against carrying concealed weapons, followed by a "this section does not apply to" exception for licensees, just like Ohio law does.)
“Based on McRae's admission that he was carrying a handgun in his waistband, the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that McRae was committing a crime under Florida law— carrying a concealed weapon. *** Under Florida law, " [a] person who carries a concealed firearm on or about his person commits a felony of the third degree." *** Notably, the possession of a valid permit for a concealed weapon is not related to the elements of the crime, but rather is an affirmative defense.
“Moreover, because reasonable suspicion analysis is not concerned with "hard certainties, but with probabilities," *** McRae's admission to carrying a concealed weapon was sufficient to justify briefly stopping him before inquiring further about whether he had an affirmative defense in the form of a valid concealed-weapons permit.” (Citations and footnotes omitted.) United States v. Lewis, 674 F.3d 1298, 1304 (11th Cir. 2012).
Bottom Line:
- If state law allows open carry without licensure, observation of open carry does not constitute reasonable articulable suspicion to detain. See Black.
- If state law prohibits concealed carry without licensure, evidence of concealed carry does constitute reasonable articulable suspicion to detain. See Lewis.
(Note that the Florida statute applied in Lewis - Fla. Stat. s 790.01 - begins with a general prohibition against carrying concealed weapons, followed by a "this section does not apply to" exception for licensees, just like Ohio law does.)