Arizona: Cops can take away your gun during any stop, even consensual

[rambone]

What an epic fail.

Gun control: Arizona ruling says police can temporarily take guns

A new Arizona court ruling says police can take temporary custody of a person's gun for officer-safety reasons even if the person's contact with police was voluntary.

 

[Redtbird]

Then, to be fair, I should ask the officer to had me HIS gun, this being for MY protection.

 

[Mark 1911]

I would seriously consider reducing my quantity of voluntary police encounters, except that it's been so long since I had one of those...

 

[cmepp18]

Nothing but furthering the divide between LEOs and civilians. Simply fueling the "us vs. them" mentality. Not cool.

 

[Fargo]

Hey the (idiot) electorate of Arizona is responsible for passing the law. I blame them.

Joe

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What an epic fail.

Ummm, what?

You are somehow disappointed that when a state legislature passes a law authorizing this conduct as reasonable and a court upholds it you are . . . what, shocked or something???

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This article doesn't really give the reader enough information to make a proper decision. In one paragraph, it seems to elude to some law that allows temporary seizing of your gun to take place. Then in the last, the dissent of the one justice seems to indicate the law does not. If it is the former, then let the Arizonans live with their decision. If they're happy with the laws their state government are generating, God bless 'em.

Some how, though, I believe it is the latter. Call me cynical.

 

[jbombelli]

This article doesn't really give the reader enough information to make a proper decision. In one paragraph, it seems to elude to some law that allows temporary seizing of your gun to take place. Then in the last, the dissent of the one justice seems to indicate the law does not. If it is the former, then let the Arizonans live with their decision. If they're happy with the laws their state government are generating, God bless 'em.

Some how, though, I believe it is the latter. Call me cynical.

Elude - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Allude - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Sorry. That word is one of my pet peeves.

--Obersturmdictionfuhrer Bombelli

 

[Fargo]

It looks like this is the statute in question:

13-3102 - Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions

K. If a law enforcement officer contacts a person who is in possession of a firearm, the law enforcement officer may take temporary custody of the firearm for the duration of that contact.

At first blush, it appears the court was right. However, sub M of the same seems to indicate it has to be a non-consensual stop:

M. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Contacted by a law enforcement officer" means a lawful traffic or criminal investigation, arrest or detention or an investigatory stop by a law enforcement officer that is based on reasonable suspicion that an offense has been or is about to be committed.

I can't find the text of the opinion, but if anyone does please link it as I am curious to read it.

Best,

Joe

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Elude - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Allude - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Sorry. That word is one of my pet peeves.

--Obersturmdictionfuhrer Bombelli

To what are you ELUDING? Heir fuhrer.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It looks like this is the statute in question:

13-3102 - Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions



At first blush, it appears the court was right. However, sub M of the same seems to indicate it has to be a non-consensual stop:



I can't find the text of the opinion, but if anyone does please link it as I am curious to read it.

Best,

Joe

I would tend to agree.

 

[SSGSAD]

Hey the (idiot) electorate of Arizona is responsible for passing the law. I blame them.

Joe

BUT, don't FORGET, WHO voted THEM IN !!!!!

 

[Fargo]

Found the opinion:

Contrary to the news article, the decision wasn't even based on the statute, rather it was a judicial molestation of Terry v. Ohio. I may owe the electorate an apology.

http://azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2013/1 CA-CR 11-0675.pdf

IMO, the dissent has it right. The court had to overrule its own precedent in Illaro, rewrite Terry, and ignore sub. M of the statute to get where it wanted to go. I found the footnote about how "armed doesn't equal dangerous" to be cute since it contradicts the holding of the opinion.

8

We do not hold, as the dissent posits, that police may
frisk a citizen simply because he is armed. We consider the
totality of
the
circumstances in determining the objective
reasonableness of police conduct.
Nor, contrary to the
dissent’s assertion, do we mean to suggest that, absent other
circumstances, officers may conduct a
Terry
stop or a
Terry
frisk of any individual they happen to encounter in a high
-
crime
area.

Gotta love when the court destroys its own holding in the footnotes of its own opinion.

Hopefully this goes up to the AZ Supreme Court.

Best,

Joe

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It will get corrected at the AZ Supreme Court or in the legislature.

I don't think gun owners of GWR are going to take this lying down.