[GunLawyer001]

Arizona v. Hicks is a US Supreme Court case, and it applies to every State of the Union until the issue is revisited. I have not Shepardized the case.

It's correct to say that the justification for the stop comes first, then the Terry frisk comes into play. Police may ATTEMPT to stop anyone and ask questions, just like you or I or a poll taker or a Girl Scout selling cookies may, but they may not COMPEL anyone to stop without reasonable suspicion (except at random DUI checkpoints, but don't get me started on that.)

PA courts have held that mere possession of a firearm in public is not enough to justify a detention or search, so just seeing the gun won't support a valid stop. Without that valid initial stop, the rest doesn't happen. No Terry frisk, no taking your gun to unload it or copy the serial numbers, no laying of hands upon your person. Without that justification, the rest of the game never even starts. The cop can try to start a conversation and fish for you to say something incriminating which THEN gives him RAS for a Terry stop, but you don't even have to speak to him.

If he has RAS, then he can disarm for his safety. Once the cops legitimately have the gun in hand, I'd imagine that Hicks would allow them to record the serial number, then run it against any database.

If it's listed as stolen, then keeping it furthers a legitimate police function.

However, keeping the gun and refusing to give it back based solely upon a conflicting or missing "registration" is Constitutionally invalid, since the "registry" has been judicially determined not to be a registry. The fact that the citizen acquired the weapon by bringing it with him from out of state, or by transfer from a parent or child or grandparent, or from anyone by virtue of his possessing a LTCF, does not in any sense create a presumption of contraband.

The new standard police procedure of grabbing every gun they see and running the serial number to see if it's stolen or "unregistered" will never survive court scrutiny, and the habit of keeping any gun that's "unregistered" is a taking of property without compensation. Without the justification for the initial stop, the police are not allowed to run fishing expeditions; they can't stop a car solely to run the VIN and see if it's stolen, although they can run the license plate on a whim. They can't stop every urban teen and photograph their bling just so they can see if it might be stolen. I can't think of any other item that the police believe they can arbitrarily seize and see if it's stolen, other than firearms.