Relinquishing Your Sidearm To LEO's At Minor Traffic Stops.

[Deanimator]

Some of the flakiest gun handling I've seen has been on the part of LEOs.

The LAST thing on earth I want is for a cop who's never touched a gun before he pinned on a badge handling my cocked and locked M1911.

 

[deadin]

I guess one solution would be if you don't want a LEO handling your gun during a minor traffic stop would be to not speed, not run red lights, etc. (In other words, don't give them a reason to stop you in the first place.)
I realize there will still be a few just plain "harassment" stops, but it should cut the odds of being stopped way down.
Or carry a DA revolver. They're about as simple to unload as anything. (Especially a top break...)

 

[Loosedhorse]

do YOU, as a LCP holder, "REALLY FEEL SAFE DOING SO"

So, this is about feelings, and feeling safe? How very Brady campaign!

First, I am NOT going to handle a gun during an LEO interaction. The most I will do is raise my arms to the sky and say, "THE GUN IS YOURS, OFFICER, PLEASE TAKE IT." Talking about unsafe, reaching for a firearm when an LEO has just asked you to disarm has got to rank right up there with wearing antlers during deer season.

Second, I don't get to choose perfect, I get to choose least bad. Is it better that I refuse, because I'm worried that the officer can't handle guns safely...so that this same supposedly unsafe officer and a whole bunch of his unsafe friends can all point their guns directly at me? How're my odds of survival doing now?

There are always exceptions, but my rule is to obey the LEO on the street: no matter how wrong he or she may be, I'm not going to win there. If he's done something wrong and I can survive to make it to court, now I've got him someplace where I can win.

Be smart.

 

[Whiskey11]

Interesting discussion about the 4th amendment and handing over firearms.

When you are pulled over on the side of the road and the officer asks if you are armed or you hand him your CHL, and he asks for said firearm, you've just pulled the firearm into a visible realm, if not completely relinquished it to the LEO. In other words, it falls under the same category as spotting the open beer bottle in the cup holder or the bloody rag, or the bong, or what ever in plain view. It is within the officer's discretion to obtain such items if he feels they may be relevant to a crime or actually criminal. It is NOT unreasonable search and seizure (by letter of law) if YOU hand him the firearm or it's laying in the seat next to you when he pulls you over. As for running the serial, well, you did just give possession, if only temporarily, of the firearm to the LEO, at which point, legally it is fair game for search of the firearm for anything illegal.

A lot of this goes to your attitude towards the officer as well. Which do you feel more threatened by, a guy who greets you nicely on the sidewalk, or some guy who treats you like <deleted>? So which do you think is more likely to be disarmed? Having said that, I don't blame officers for asking for firearms, it IS a safety issue. It's the same reason that an officer can pull you from a car and search the cabin of the car for weapons if they feel threatened and can articulate that in court. It's the same reason an officer can stop and frisk you. Mind you, a frisk can not be used to search for other items, only weapons or items which could be used as one effectively.

By letter of law, none of that is unreasonable search (and seizure if it turns up anything) to anyone but YOU. It would stand in court, especially if you hand the firearm over to the LEO in the first place.

As for the issue of handing it over and accidental/negligent discharges, sure, but it's fairly easy to drop the magazine, rack the slide with hand over port to catch said ejecting round, and rack it a few more times to ensure it is clear from the officers stand point. I'm not saying every officer can do this, but handguns are not some sort of voodoo magic, their controls are pretty much laid out in a standard configuration for any defense carry firearm. Some education and application to and by officers can go a long way in helping with some of the issues, but for the most part it is fairly standard across the board. I personally would be more worried about the LEO putting my firearm on the hood or roof of my car and scratching the paint (2009 Mustang GT ). Thankfully all of the local LEO's tend to come from a very gun friendly state and most have had more than just their academy and annual qualifications as firearm training.

And on the issue of fumbling a firearm. A lot goes on physiologically in a traffic stop. Any officer who tells you that there is a routine stop is lying to you, and any officer who actually believes that puts himself at serious risk. Adrenaline (yeah, even from a traffic stop), unknown demeanor of the person you just pulled over, location of the stop, etc, all play into exaggerating anxiety which can make it very interesting to handle firearms. Me personally, if I ever get into this situation I would probably do the following:

1. Turn off Car, take keys out and put them on the dash in front of the steering wheel, caution lights and parking break
2. Roll down window and greet officers in a positive (as positive as one can be I guess ) manor.
3. Inform officer that there is a loaded firearm on my person.
4. If officer asks to temporarily confiscate it, inform him that it would make you more comfortable to unload it for him for safety reasons. Heck, tell him that you are a 100% believer that you should never pass a loaded firearm to another person due to the extreme danger that lies in doing so. Then tell him "I will unload the firearm, first by pointing it at the passenger side foot well, dropping the magazine, racking the slide, then racking the slide 2 more times to ensure clear, then I will hand over the firearm." All the while keeping hands in plain view. I would then tell the officer, again, step by step what I'm doing, ensuring to keep hands in plain view as well as the firearm and make your intentions extremely clear that you have zero intent on harming him or his fellow officers.
5. Hand over the firearm first, magazine and ejected round last.

At this point, most officers I have met will have very little issues with letting you unload the firearm, although there will be those who still wish to do it. At which point I will ask again and explain in detail why I wish to clear my firearm. If they are still adamant about it, then I would ask that the LEO not take or attempt to take control of the firearm until it is out of the vehicle and in a safe direction for both our safety's sake.

Sometimes it goes a long way to be respectful and apply logic rather than emotion to your actions. Most officers will respond positively to sound logic rather than irrational fear or extreme attitude about the situation.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If the officer asks you to hand him your weapon, you're going to have to put your hand on it to do so anyway.

If the officer is asking you to hand him your weapon, then it would be an impossible argument to claim in court that the officer was doing it for the purposes of officer safety.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the seizure of a gun during a routine traffic stop can only be performed for officer safety. So, if the officer can articulate why they felt their safety is at risk and needed to seize your weapon, how can the officer possibly continue to justify that when the next thing he asks you to do is to handle your gun that he is claiming is a threat to his safety?!?

This whole entire situation doesn't make any sense at all. "Hey, buddy, would mind handing me that gun right there because I don't want you to shoot me with it?"

 

[Oyeboten]

I do not feel it is safe to hand over one's CCW Carry piece to any LEO in contexts of petty, invasive or pretextual gambits of Traffic Stops.

Few LEO have enough understanding of Side Arms or of Gun Safety in general, to safely handle anything in any context.

Plus, hamming pretexts of so called 'Officer Safety' while tacitly ignoring private citizen Safety to favor it, is insulting and hypocrytical.

I see nothing wrong with a driver who is pulled over for a bad tail-lamp Bulb, informing the LEO that he or she is a CCW holder and has their piece on them or near them.

I see a lot wrong with the LEO demanding to assume custody of the piece then, and or to go through protracted efforts to find fault there after, searching the person in the Spread-Eagle ritual,
running the Gun's Serial Number, detaining the person for an hour or more while the LEO is on his radio in his own Car, on and on, which here anyway, is usualy what happens at that point.


Fishing Expeditions under petty pretext, by LEO, does far more to ensure eroding Good Will, and positive contempt and distain for LEO, from the people they are supposed to serve, than that it will ever make up for by finding the occasional petty infraction.

 

[HorseSoldier]

His/her job is to uphold and defend the Constitution, not to violate it at will.

Officers uphold the Consitution and abide by all sorts of legal decisions that complicate identification and apprehension of bad folks to protect the rights of citizens in general day in and day out. That's the nature of the job and it often means not charging someone at all or seeing someone who is guilty as the day is long skate on charges because of laws that protect bad folks as well as good.

Whether or not their actions gel with your amateur interpretations of Constitutional Law may be a broader question.

Explain to me why a guns s/n should be run and a phone's shouldn't let alone any other readily visible number on a vehicle, offering stuff up should be considered downright helpful! Last I knew there were more stolen vehicles and electronics in this country than guns by a large margin.

Quite honestly, running serial numbers is a discretionary thing. If you handed me a high end phone I might run the serial number as well simply because if it is stolen it's always a nice day when a routine traffic stop helps catch someone guilty of some real, felony level crime.

But if during a traffic stop you start digging through your car for items with serial numbers on them (furtively from my point of view in the patrol car, and definitely in defiance of direct orders if I'm at the car) odds are really good that after a verbal warning you're going into handcuffs for the duration of the contact. In my training and experience people who furtively search their vehicle and/or disobey direct and entirely reasonable commands from an officer while they are detained on a traffic stop are either engaged in some criminal enterprise, under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, or have mental health issues that make them potential dangers to themselves and others. So, while on the street I was the nicest and most polite officer most people ever met (even including the people I arrested), I'd feel entirely comfortable with putting you in cuffs for the duration of the contact and don't think I'd have been looking at anything more than a verbal talking to from a sergeant that wouldn't have even risen to the level of a verbal reprimand when I articulated my observations and course of action prior to putting you in cuffs.

(And I might be wrong -- we had a case up here several years back where a woman sued about being detained in cuffs because she matched the description of a bank robber -- crux of her argument being that the only thing that matched was her skin color -- and a civil jury did find in her favor. The $40K she spent in legal fees and is still on the hook for was not exactly offset by the $1.00 awarded to her for damages . . .)

And that's not a power trip, that's just the sort of basic prudence that surviving the job requires. You may know yourself to be a law abiding citizen, and may feel yourself to be the victim of some jackbooted thuggery, but all you're presenting from my perspective is someone who violated the traffic code and then started acting crazy and potentially dangerous during the contact.

Rationalize all you like but running the number on someone's gun without probable cause violates the 4th and insults the owner as an officer at that point is inferring that the owner is a criminal.

A) I'm not rationalizing anything. The courts -- the people who are paid professionals when it comes to interpreting the Constitution -- have supported the rights of officers to run serial numbers on guns. End of story until such time as case law produces a new precedent that changes that. Could that happen? Sure, but until then the people who are empowered to interpret the law and their interpretation trumps your amateur efforts to do the same.

B) So what you're saying is your opposition to this boils down to getting your feelings hurt in a traffic stop?

Not running the rest of the available numbers in someone's pockets and vehicle insults my intelligence if I am to believe they are looking to do anything other than disarm me as some kind of a power trip.

No, if you get disarmed during a traffic stop (and that's a big if, at least in my neck of the woods) it's not a power trip, it's for your safety. You are infinitely less likely to be shot to death if you are not in possession of a firearm than if you are if/when the officer gets back to his vehicle, runs your OL, and discovers any sort of new facts that mean the routine traffic stop is now something else. Or already knows that you're going to be doing field sobriety tests and possibly facing DUI arrest but he's not getting you out of the car until after his cover officer arrives.

Routine traffic stops occasionally become acrimonious and result in someone being detained in cuffs or arrested only after the initial contact where the gun may have been removed from the equation. If you are still in possession of a firearm when those sort of situations go sideways the odds of something very bad happening go up exponentially (and that includes both bad scenarios where officers act appropriately or where some tragic error occurs).

 

[HorseSoldier]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the seizure of a gun during a routine traffic stop can only be performed for officer safety. So, if the officer can articulate why they felt their safety is at risk and needed to seize your weapon, how can the officer possibly continue to justify that when the next thing he asks you to do is to handle your gun that he is claiming is a threat to his safety?!?

See my previous response.

As an example -- in a place where the law doesn't just say you are required to give it to me if I ask for it, as per Alaska:

1) I stop you for a traffic violation. You have just left someplace where you had the proverbial two beers.

2) You inform me you are lawfully armed in accordance with local CCW laws.

3) You reek of alcohol.

4) I know you're coming out of the car to do SFSTs and possibly be arrested for DUI. I also know that drunks facing arrest for DUI are known to sometimes fight and resist.

5) I make the decision that disarming you while you are still seated in the car, at a position of relative disadvantage and where I have the B pillar providng me some cover and protection should you attempt to use your weapon is the safest means of disarming you rather than letting you get out of the vehicle, on your feet, where you are much better equipped to fight me or draw and use your weapon. Again, you're going to be doing field sobriety tests, so just throwing you in cuffs isn't an option or an appropriate course of action.

In this scenario your lawyer would basically be laughed out of court if he tried to claim that my actions were not consistent with prudent and legal actions taken for officer safety.

 

[BLB68]

This whole entire situation doesn't make any sense at all. "Hey, buddy, would mind handing me that gun right there because I don't want you to shoot me with it?"

I've seen LEOs do all kinds of things that don't make sense.

 

[Hoth206]

I've been stopped a couple of times while carrying, and just have my CHL along with my DL and Insurance card ready. I've never even been asked about where the pistol was.

However, I was involved in a Coast Guard search of my truck before boarding a ferry. The 19 year old or so sailor that questioned me asked if I had any weapons in the truck. I told him yes, and that it was in my back,right pocket (LCP in a "wallet holster").

He asked me to please exit the truck and then he basically frisked me to retrieve the pistol. He asked if it was loaded, and if it had the safety on. Worried me a little bit that he didn't seem familiar with that type of pistol, but the rest was no big deal. I spent the next 10 minutes with them digging through my truck as I shot the breeze with the deputy. When I got back in the truck, he handed me the pistol and said the ammo was in the cupholder. Have a nice day.

My philosphy is that you can go a LONG way with law enforcement by being friendly and respectful and following instructions.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I see nothing wrong with a driver who is pulled over for a bad tail-lamp Bulb, informing the LEO that he or she is a CCW holder and has their piece on them or near them.

I see a lot wrong with the LEO demanding to assume custody of the piece then, and or to go through protracted efforts to find fault there after, searching the person in the Spread-Eagle ritual,
running the Gun's Serial Number, detaining the person for an hour or more while the LEO is on his radio in his own Car, on and on, which here anyway, is usualy what happens at that point.


Fishing Expeditions under petty pretext, by LEO, does far more to ensure eroding Good Will, and positive contempt and distain for LEO, from the people they are supposed to serve, than that it will ever make up for by finding the occasional petty infraction.

So, you tell the officer you are licensed to carry a firearm and are carrying one. He checks out your CCW permit and then asks you to step out of the vehicle and tells you he is going to take your gun for "officer safety" and maybe even to run the serial number to see if the gun stolen. Then what?

 

[chrome_austex]

If I lived in your state, I would consider buying a CC pistol that my local LE officers are more likely to be able to render safe, esp considering how common traffic stops are.

Same reason I don't like storing both my pistol and my car insurance in the glove compartment.. in a traffic stop I don't want to scare anyone whilest going for the insurance. (in texas, it isn't required to inform an LEO that you're carrying, although its understood to be the polite thing to do)

Frankly it sounds like the gun show doorman in your story acted quite appropriately confronted with a relatively uncommon system with which he was unfamiliar (magazine safety).

In most cases, I would rather hand my firearm over to a police officer than to anyone else. They're not all pistol buffs, but they've avoided shooting themselves with their own firearms at least up to the point that you hand them yours. I would defer to an actual LEO, as I believe the law is trying to protect and assist them.

Went to a gun show and at the door was a firearms safety person. As always, I presented my empty pistol with the slide locked back.. and the empty mag inserted. Upon handing the pistol to the safety person/gun checker he dropped the mag on to the table top and hit the slide release. As he did this I picked up my mag and started to hand it to him saying.. "You need to put this back in the gun....", but before I could continue with what I was going to say, he gave me the old evil eye saying quite loudly.. "NO magazines are allowed in the guns".

 

[Jeff White]

What it boils down to, is, it doesn't matter if you think it's safe or not, you need to comply. This is a total non issue.

Arguing, handling the weapon more the officer instructs or any action other then what was instructed by the officer can only cause you more problems. At the very least it could get you a citation where you might have received a warning. At the worst you may be laying face down on the pavement at gun point, cuffed, arrested, your vehicle towed and you in jail for obstruction.

It doen't matter if the officer is Don Knott's double and his chief makes him keep his one bullet in his shirt pcket, if he asks you to surrender your weapon, you better do it.

 

[MrWesson]

thats why I never tell them I have anything unless they ask(no duty to inform here)

 

[nigmalg]

Can someone explain to me how a subject being detained for a non-criminal traffic stop, relinquishing his or her permit to carry, has entered the realm of reasonable suspicion for criminal activity?

How can this meet the requirements of several SCOTUS decisions, including Terry or Florida v. J.L.?

According to case law and all of the various stop an frisk statutes, there must be something beyond the simple possession of the gun to articulate such suspicion, even during a non-criminal traffic stop. Threatening behavior could all lead to RAS, but the simple possession of a firearm and CWP would NOT.

Further more, running a serial number is fine when the property is in plain view. However, how it entered plain view matters greatly.

I think everyone nailed it here. Statistically speaking, having anyone handle your firearm will increase the probability of a safety issue. There are a good number of officers that don't get the training they should. And there are officers that do make displays of power on the side of the road, even when inappropriate.

Unless officers have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, for which a firearm or weapon would be incidental.. don't disarm!

 

[Single Action Six]

Deanimator; Thank You.. Thank You.. and Thank You..!!

Some of the flakiest gun handling I've seen has been on the part of LEOs.

The LAST thing on earth I want is for a cop who's never touched a gun before he pinned on a badge handling my cocked and locked M1911.

Someone who finally sees the whole point of my post!! Thank You. That's what I've been trying to get across all this time.. and you're the first one to see it.

Single Action Six

 

[Single Action Six]

And The Whole Point Of Your Post Was.. WHAT..!!..?

So, this is about feelings, and feeling safe? How very Brady campaign!

First, I am NOT going to handle a gun during an LEO interaction. The most I will do is raise my arms to the sky and say, "THE GUN IS YOURS, OFFICER, PLEASE TAKE IT." Talking about unsafe, reaching for a firearm when an LEO has just asked you to disarm has got to rank right up there with wearing antlers during deer season.

Second, I don't get to choose perfect, I get to choose least bad. Is it better that I refuse, because I'm worried that the officer can't handle guns safely...so that this same supposedly unsafe officer and a whole bunch of his unsafe friends can all point their guns directly at me? How're my odds of survival doing now?

There are always exceptions, but my rule is to obey the LEO on the street: no matter how wrong he or she may be, I'm not going to win there. If he's done something wrong and I can survive to make it to court, now I've got him someplace where I can win.

Be smart.

It's obvious from your response to my original post, that what I was asking/posting not only went right over your head, but didn't even come close to answering what was asked/stated.

Just as curiosity though.. "What does the Brady Campaign have to do with anything", or specifically.. "What does it have to do with LEO's mishandling a firearm during a traffic stop"?

Single Action Six

 

[HorseSoldier]

Originally posted by Oyeboten
Few LEO have enough understanding of Side Arms or of Gun Safety in general, to safely handle anything in any context.

As a side note, I'd also be happy to line up next to you on the seven meter line on a flat range and embarass you in terms of your proficiency with firearms vis a vis a humble law enforcement officer. If it would make you feel better, I'd be happy to detail strip your weapon for your after that, at least flag anything that requires armorer level maintenance and put it back together for you.

There are some non-gun folks in the law enforcement community, but there are quite a few whose knowledge is encyclopedic and whose skills well surpass Joe 6 Pack valiantly CCW'ing day in and day out. I never had occasion to shoot anyone as an LEO, but had frequent occasions to make split decisions about whether or not to end someone's life based on the circumstances. Is that something you, with your apparently superior training, do with any frequency?

 

[nigmalg]

As a side note, I'd also be happy to line up next to you on the seven meter line on a flat range and embarass you in terms of your proficiency with firearms vis a vis a humble law enforcement officer. If it would make you feel better, I'd be happy to detail strip your weapon for your after that, at least flag anything that requires armorer level maintenance and put it back together for you.

There are some non-gun folks in the law enforcement community, but there are quite a few whose knowledge is encyclopedic and whose skills well surpass Joe 6 Pack valiantly CCW'ing day in and day out. I never had occasion to shoot anyone as an LEO, but had frequent occasions to make split decisions about whether or not to end someone's life based on the circumstances. Is that something you, with your apparently superior training, do with any frequency?

You make up a distinct minority in the Law Enforcement community. Speak with any LE firearms instructor.

I'm also assuming experience level is environmental; I'm sure big cities set the curve

 

[Jeff White]

According to case law and all of the various stop an frisk statutes, there must be something beyond the simple possession of the gun to articulate such suspicion, even during a non-criminal traffic stop.

First of all, this has absolutely nothing to do with stop and frisk. If state statute requires you to inform the offier that you are armed, then he comes into that knowledge legally and without any relevance to stop and frisk. At that point if the officer decides to disram you for safety reasons it is totally within his/her right and I challenge you to find a court case where that disarming was held to be unlawful.

This is an officer safety issue, not civil rights issue. You have no right to be armed with anything from a pocket knife to an M2 Browning machine gun during an interaction with a police officer if the officer deems your possession of said item would present a danger to him, you or the public. The courts have consistantly upheld disarming people for the duration of an LE contact.

 

[nigmalg]

First of all, this has absolutely nothing to do with stop and frisk. If state statute requires you to inform the offier that you are armed, then he comes into that knowledge legally and without any relevance to stop and frisk. At that point if the officer decides to disram you for safety reasons it is totally within his/her right and I challenge you to find a court case where that disarming was held to be unlawful.

This is an officer safety issue, not civil rights issue. You have no right to be armed with anything from a pocket knife to an M2 Browning machine gun during an interaction with a police officer if the officer deems your possession of said item would present a danger to him, you or the public. The courts have consistantly upheld disarming people for the duration of an LE contact.

I mentioned "stop and frisk", as that's how the statute/code is defined when referenced. The "frisk" portion of that does require legal hurdles to execute.

Would LE contact include receiving other non-criminal citations? Code violations? Parking tickets? Could a carrier be disarmed without criminal suspicion in these instances?

What about being stopped while walking to the movie theater?

You're right about him being able to disarm a carrier that's a danger to him or the public. Only that danger needs to be articulated and reasonable. I challenge you to find an instance of a CWP holder firing at a officer after informing him about his firearm and permit.

edit: firearm and permit .

 

[Guns and more]

but rather do YOU, as a LCP holder, really feel SAFE doing so,

Heck, I don't feel safe getting stopped by a LEO, much less, disarmed.
However, in the interest of not being cuffed and stuffed, I suggest you hand over your weapon. You will lose.

I always wonder on how smart it is for an LEO to ask, "Are you armed?"
Think about it.
Anyone who has a carry permit isn't a threat to a LEO, so someone saying "Yes" is not the problem.
The ex-con with a gun isn't going to say "Why, yes officer, I was considering offing you, but I can't tell a lie."
So, the whole question is stupid, IMO.

 

[Jeff White]

I mentioned "stop and frisk", as that's how the statute/code is defined when referenced. The "frisk" portion of that does require legal hurdles to execute.

It is completely irrelevant when the CCW statute requires the permit holder to inform the officer he/she is carrying. There is no frisk involved as the law requires you to inform the officer.

Would LE contact include receiving other non-criminal citations? Code violations? Parking tickets? Could a carrier be disarmed without criminal suspicion in these instances?

Of course he could. You have no constitutional right to be armed while you have any contact wioth a police officer. There is no requirement for any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before an officer can make the conditions of the contact safe for everyone involved. Does the judge have to provide reasonable suspciion fo criminal activity before he bans possession of firearms in the courthouse? Of course not. I have asked people to put things like baseball bats down before I approached them to talk with them on a call. I had no need to suspect that criminal activity was occuring before I had them put the bat down and step away from it to speak with me. I was simply making the contact as safe as possible. I had no idea what the contact was going to turn into, b ut I was sure I didn't want to stand at arms length to someone with a baseball bat in their hands while I talked with them.

You're right about him being able to disarm a carrier that's a danger to him or the public. Only that danger needs to be articulated and reasonable

Show me the statute or court ruling that requires this. You might not like this, but if you are armed and the officer doesn't want you to be during the contact that's all that is required. Why do you think the legislatures of so many states put the notification requirement in the law? It wasn't there so the officer can prepare to out draw you if the contact turns violent, it's there so he can prempt it turning violent by disarming the CCW holder if he feels he needs to before it gets that far.

 

[nigmalg]

In your example with the baseball bat, you mentioned that it wasn't yet a "criminal stop". Which I imagine that would mean that any consensual stop could be the basis to disarm someone carrying.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/State_v_Casad_(unpublished).pdf

For the sake of argument, lets imagine after notifying an officer that you're carrying, it has become "Open Carry" per this story.

Edit: I haven't really touched on whether it was incidental to the investigation, or if a weapon in the hand is the same as secured in a holster.

 

[nigmalg]

In almost every case following Terry, the suspicion must be that the suspect is armed and dangerous to temporarily seize weapons. There are several citations there expanding on the original Terry opinion, all of which make such a requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop