The en banc court of the 4th circuit court of appeals answered "Yes" to this:
"This appeal presents the question of whether a law enforcement officer is justified in frisking a person whom the officer has lawfully stopped and whom the officer reasonably believes to be armed, regardless of whether the person may legally be entitled to carry the firearm. Stated otherwise, the question is whether the risk of danger to a law enforcement officer created by the forced stop of a person who is armed is eliminated by the fact that state law authorizes persons to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm."
The "forced stop" was for not wearing a seat belt. The conclusion of the en banc majority was that "armed" always means "armed and dangerous" or at least it does so in a motor vehicle. The government's position was that, outside of a motor vehicle, carrying a weapon (concealed or openly) where it is legal to carry a weapon does not constitute reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio.
By the way, Robinson was frisked outside of the motor vehicle and one of the police officers had already drawn his handgun out of the holster which may be a significant factors if the cert petition is granted. Another significant factor might be that this was a pretextual stop over an infraction.
Many of you know of my opposition to concealed carry but this is not a Second Amendment question, it is a Fourth Amendment question which the en banc majority got very wrong, in my opinion.
On April 7th, the lawyer for Robinson filed a request to extend the deadline for filing his cert petition. These requests are usually granted and I don't think this case will be an exception.
The briefs, oral arguments, and en banc decision are at my website here.
I will post the cert stage briefs as they become available. I have no doubt that when the cert petition is filed, SCOTUSblog will create a case page as well.
