greyhound
Member
Now here is one I've never been able to understand. Whenever I read about a person shooting someone invading their home, or indeed any home-related firearm incident, its always seems like "and the authorities confiscated all the firearms in the home". Of course I can understand taking the weapon involved, but why the heck do they have to take them all? I can also see us just telling the involved person not to reveal the presence of additional firearms, but really, who would be in the frame of mind after a shooting to not reveal that? I wonder if its a sneaky way to get guns "off the street" as if us "soft guys" (if this comment by a Minnesota sheriff isn't a thread here it will be) are committing crimes with our gun collection?
And I wonder even if the shooting is ruled justifiable, would the home owner get his guns back? I bet it would be difficult. Now of course I'd rather have my life than my guns, but this just seems like an unnecessary abuse of a citizen's rights by the government. The fact that someone was forced to use a firearm to defend their life should not automatically bar them from firearm ownership. Heck, that's why they investigate these things. And, maybe, this practice is confined to the liberal states, but I could swear I've read articles about this all over the place. Any opinions?
And I wonder even if the shooting is ruled justifiable, would the home owner get his guns back? I bet it would be difficult. Now of course I'd rather have my life than my guns, but this just seems like an unnecessary abuse of a citizen's rights by the government. The fact that someone was forced to use a firearm to defend their life should not automatically bar them from firearm ownership. Heck, that's why they investigate these things. And, maybe, this practice is confined to the liberal states, but I could swear I've read articles about this all over the place. Any opinions?