Entirely a hypothetical legal case

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TimeRegained

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
55
Just to keep it simple, given that most/some lawful gun-owners possess firearms for the sake of [home] defense ... in the event of, for instance, a home invasion or some kind of home robbery where the home owner uses his [handgun/shotgun] in some manner [brandishing it, firing it]... would law enforcement confiscate all the home owner's firearms or just what was used in regard to the crime?

I ask this because would using one firearm for self-defense in a home robbery cause the homeowner to lose all their firearms ....


Thank you
 
Generally, no, if there is no reason for initially-investigating personnel to have doubts about the legitimacy of the incident. I have even heard of cases in which officers, as they reluctantly took possession of the defense weapon, ask the shooter if he/she has another they can remain armed with in the immediate future. And, I've read of at least one in which the shooter was not required to surrender his weapon after simply agreeing to bring it by the station the following day for a ballistic test-fire.

But, a lot is going to depend on the political climate in the area, especially in states that already heavily regulate firearm ownership and possession. In those states, particularly those which register firearms and their owners, there may be suspension of carry-permits (or FOID cards, in those states that require them) pending the outcome of the situation.
 
Different States, different agencies, different procedures.

I think a fair generalization would be that at the stage the matter is just under investigation, probably only the gun used would be seized as evidence. But if the actor is charged, probably all guns will be taken.

But as I said, this is just a rough generalization, and things might be done differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top