Kevin,
You have made a very reasoned, polite, and a not in-your-face rebuttal to my post for which I am extremely appreciative.
Many see even the temporary relinquishment of a firearm to a LEO to be some kind of egregious violation of the 4A. However, firearms are routinely placed into the temporary custody of Law Enforcement all of the time. This happens when entering certain places such as courthouses, Federal Buildings and secure areas. I have witnessed this or participated in this myself.
Frankly I do have somewhat an issue with disarming citizens as a matter of course in so many areas, but that is a different discussion.
Even assuming one does assert the the example you give is acceptable, I would suggest that it does not apply. The key difference is that all the areas you mention are public areas where people come to with some degree of choice and prior decision. The key issue in the original post is surrendering
on private property without reasonable cause. That's a very different case, even more so because the general case presented involves LEOs initiating contact with the law-abiding citizens versus the citizen coming to the LEO or reasonable suspicion being present.
Vehicles do pose an interesting case regarding their legal status as private property, but even there I tend to come down more on the side of someone being on their property while within their vehicle versus on public property.
I have seen LEO's secure their weapons when entering certain areas, so I don't see how a LEO temporarily taking control of a firearm is in any way, shape or form an unlawful seizure.
Sorry, this sentence makes no logical sense to me. Because LEOs give up their guns in some places others should be compelled to give up possession to LEOs elsewhere?
In defense of law enforcement, I will say that if a police officer sees someone lawfully armed and has reason to stop and interview that person, it is not unreasonable to ask that person to temporarily relinquish their firearm.
I claim it IS unreasonable as it is based on a prior presumption of guilt.
The cop doesn't know if you are a good guy or a bad guy and before you say well..."If I'm walking down the street a la doobie with my trusty six shooter at my side, and it's perfectly legal to open carry it's none of that cop's business." Well in a perfect world that may be so. But the truth of the matter, depending on circumstances, time of day and general enviornment, that behavior is going to be questioned because in all probability the person with the gun is a POOP (person out of place) with an OOP (object out of place).
The fundamental problem is that assumption that simply carrying a gun makes one a person out of place, or that guns in and of themselves are objects out of place.
There ar towns and places in Arizona where one can carry a firearm all day and all night without raising an eyebrow, but try that in Phoenix. Now this may surprise Tony, but I actually lived in Georgia. I'd like to try to open carry or carry a rifle down Peachtree Street in Atlanta without drawing attention to myself to the Atlanta Police.
Just because many bad guys carry guns in those places does not logically mean that everyone who carries guns there, or elsewhere, is bad.
When I go to a gun show (and this has been my experience with gun shows literally from coast to coast) I have to declare whether or not I am carrying or not. I must temporarily relinquish my firearm to the officer or security guard at the door who inspects it and bands it before returning it to me.
False example. That is private property. Requiring such surrendering is the right of the property owner. It's their right to choose if and who to hire to carry out that rule on their property. Again, the original case is not private property owners requiring the surrender of arms but government agents enforcing such surrender regardless the property owner's desires.
Put yourself on the other side of the coin, for a moment. Frankly, I think that there are a number of people who have issues with authority, and they project that in their movements, body language and speech inflection. This is going to attract the attention of the Cops. Now maybe you don't like that statement, or maybe you think it is wrong, but that is the way it is in the real world.
Acting suspicious when dealing with suspicious acting people is entirely to be expected. Again though, someone carrying a gun IAW their rights should not automatically render them suspicious, particularly on private property.
Now I don't think that many people who open carry a weapon are bad guys in an urban situation, but it is different for a game warden out in the field. First not everyone is hunting. In many rural areas, clandestine marijuana farms, and drug labs can be found. People engaged in these illicit activities are frequently armed. It is perfectly understanable that a LEO is going to be very wary when encountering any armed person in the field. Firefights between hunters (in and out of season) and game wardens have to known to have happened as well. Some decry officer safety, but that is what it really is, officer safety.
I'm all for officers being safe, but not at the expense of the fundamental rights that make this country what it is. I wish as much time and energy was expending in teaching and training LEOs on how to deal with the public safely and effectively, including lawfully armed public citizens, as is expended in attempting to legislate safety.
I do not think that those who see the issue differently than me are going to change their minds and I can readily understand concerns about civil liberties, but sometimes those civil liberties have to be tempered by a little common sense.
Were that it were that simple. The problem is there is little common sense to much of what is being discussed. Most "safety legislation" has become punishing the deeds of the many for the misdeeds of the few.