I really don't think it is wrong. If an officer has reasonable suspicion of crime, and he believes that you are armed and also dangerous, then he can seize the weapon for the duration of the stop. This is not wrong at all.
Sorry I'm late to the discussion, fellas.
I'm with MAC702. A respectful complaint is in order. A complaint is an exercise of the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances. There is no requirement that says you can only complain when the cop violates the law. If that were the case, the government could just keep passing laws and court decisions until all manner of government nonsense was legal and you couldn't petition for redress on any of it, thereby negating the right.
Regarding the OPs stop, under
PAvs Mimms, the temporary gun seizure was legal. In
Terry v Ohio, the Supreme Court set out three conditions for searching a detainee and temporarily seizing weapons:
1. Reasonable suspicion the detainee is armed.
2. Reasonable suspicion the detainee is presently dangerous.
2. Nothing in the initial moments of the encounter serves to dispel the officer's reasonable concern for his safety. (That is to say, the court is expecting cops to look over the situation and make an intelligent evaluation. More about this later.)
Thus,
Terry had three requirements. But, the later
Mimms case equated guns with dangerousness. Rather than requiring armed + dangerous as done in
Terry, the
Mimms court essentially said guns = dangerousness during traffic stops. So, the OPers temporary weapon seizure was legal.
It was wrong as hell, though. The proof is in the contrast. Lots of traffic stops have been reported here where the cop did not seize the gun. Lots. If all guns or all drivers were dangerous, no cop would ever fail to temporarily seize a gun during a traffic stop.
What we have here is a cop who can't or won't use judgement about whether the driver is dangerous (the third condition under Terry.) Further, some departments seem to make it policy to temporarily seize guns during traffic stops just so they can go on a little fishing expedition and run the serial number to see if it was reported stolen. Or, perhaps some cops are making it their personal policy. This is what happens when a massive central government's senior court hands cops a loophole.
In any complaint, I would definitely spend some time addressing the failure to use judgement and the fishing expedition for serial number. Just because a court said its legal because of officer safety concerns does not mean its OK for a cop who has no reason to think the driver dangerous to go on a fishing expedition.