imported post
Part of the problem here is that the discussion is a little imprecise.
There is a distinction between a so-called duty-to-inform, and a warrantless weapon seizure (disarm).
Aseizure is governed by the 4th Amendment and related court opinions. In this case, sincethe discussionis about weapons,
Terry v Ohio[suP]1[/suP] and subsequent opinions based on it apply here. Ina nutshell,cops first need reasonable suspicion regarding a crimeto seize (detain) the person before the cops are legally authorized to searchfor and seize a weapon for officer safety or safety of others in the vicinity. If there is no reasonable suspicion of crime, then there is no authority to take involuntary action against the person (detain), and no authority to seize a gun.
Regarding a so-called duty-to-notify, if there are no legal grounds for a seizure, or no seizure occurring, there is no reason to notifyduring the "contact" (the word used in the article's quote).As a side note, notice the quote says "contact", not seizure, detention, etc. Nicely vague word where precision is needed.
If there is a seizure of the person, then
Terry applies and the cop, if he is reasonably suspicious the person is armed and presently dangerous, may search for and temporarily seize anyweapons. So, no need for a notification.In short,not-dangerous people aren't going to shoot the cop. And criminals aren't going to notify the cop anyway.The only thing a so-called duty-to-notify does is open the door to an automatic weapon seizure solely for the cop to go on a fishing expedition for a stolen gun by running its serial number.
The simple fact that we have a number ofreports on this forum of police who did not seize guns automatically during traffic stops tells the tale. Mere possession is not automatically dangerous; if it were, almost all cops would always seize guns.
One thing that is missing from the article isquotes of actual statutes supported by the NRA. To know for sure, one wouldreally have to see the statute.
But, I can say I disagree with any NRA support for a so-called duty to notify.
It would be telling if additionallanguage in a bill was refused thatsaid a gun seizedas the result of a "notification" cannothave its serial number run, cannot be damaged in any way, etc. And, that it can be seized only if there is additional
objective indications of dangerousness on the part of the detainee.
1.
Terry v Ohio. Also,be sure to read the dissent. It is rather enlightening. The opinion is here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html
