Police Confiscation of Gun after Self Defense Shooting

[Old Dog]

I guess my thoughts on SD firearms are - get something that works well and you are comfortable shooting, but don't spend a huge amount of money on it or use a family heirloom for SD, because it may be quite a while before you get it back, and evidence firearms have been engraved/marked/mishandled many times in the past.

I've seen this sentiment expressed so many times over the years, I've lost count. I couldn't disagree more.

For me, I want available what I shoot best, most accurately and the fastest -- typically a full-size 1911. If the $3,000 Ed Brown happens to be used in defense of my loved ones, it's done its job, and if it never comes back to me, so be it. Just like if my brand-new, top of the line Volvo gets taken out by a semi and totaled, but my family survives with no serious injuries -- it's done its job, and we'll move on.

 

[larry_minn]

Ide imagine it varies case by case......and dept by dept.

That being said......if you are legally cleared of any wrong doing.....your property is your property, and they have no legal right to keep it from you.

That sounds good.... I wouldn't bank on it. I recall Police Chiefs saying they kept spare gun for any Officer involved shooting. So when they take the Officers gun they hand him/her the exact same model/type to put back in holster.
I would expect the gun to be taken for long time. What would upset me is when you hear they ask, want to take all other guns you own...
For a self defense situation.... IMO if you ever get involved where you have to shoot someone. Odds of a 2nd incident might be higher.

 

[41 Mag]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41 Mag View Post
If I am ever forced to use any weapon in self defense I totally agree with the above.

In this case it will be whatever I get my hand on first and loosing it over a family members or my or life will be the least of my concerns.

Firearms are replaceable, loved ones aren't.

Is everyone here sniffing friggin' glue ?? Once again....no one is saying you shouldn't defend your life with a weapon that happens to be extremely valuable, if that is your ONLY option, the point is that it is vastly more prudent to pick ANOTHER, LESS EXPENSIVE weapon from your arsenal.
And given that no one is threatning your life at THIS MOMENT, you clearly have the option of arranging this, beforehand.
I'm just baffled why this is such a difficult "theory" for some to grasp.

I don't feel the need here to get overly involved with what YOU think I, or anyone else, should do that satisfies your own feelings on this matter.

The fact of the matter is however, you can plan all you want, you can set anything you so desire to the side and have it ready to go. Thing is YOU do not know if or when someone is going to choose you as a target. They might not even know until the exact moment you become their victim.

At that point they are the only ones who know and once they shove a gun in your face, well having the 5th Calvary in your bedroom isn't going to change the immediate outcome, unless you have your weapon drawn and ready in your hand at all times. I think we can all agree that this isn't going to be the case.

Now, "IF" things go south, I have any number of handguns and long guns that I can access rather quickly. Like many others here, I am very proficient with them all. All of the handguns are ones that I purchased and are all, for average handguns, in the middle to upper price range. Nothing will break me or even upset me having known it saved my or my family members life.

What I do not understand is why "you" feel I need to purchase and lay my or my loved ones life on the line, something that is inferior to what I already have. Use what you want, and I'll use what I want, and we'll agree to disagree.

 

[TimSr]

This thread has turned into an example of how everyone can agree on something, but we have to split hairs on the wording just so people can argue.

Firearms are replaceable, loved ones aren't.

No, actually many firearms are NOT replaceable but NOBODY would suggest any firearm, regardless of its value be off limits to protect your family.

What I do not understand is why "you" feel I need to purchase and lay my or my loved ones life on the line, something that is inferior to what I already have.

NOBODY would suggest downgrading to an inferior weapon for self defense, but a weapons monetary or collector value has nothing to do with its suitability for defense. Why would anybody put their 100 year old never fired Colt revolver in their nightstand, while their Glock is in the safe?



This thread is about understanding and accepting the reality of possibly losing your weapon, even if you have done nothing wrong. If you are okay with putting your most prized weapons in the primary positions of possible loss, it is nobody else's business. If you have the same confidence in less valuable or more easily replaced weapons, it would make practical sense to put them into 1st line primary usage. Especially with daily carry weapons, it has to be understood that they will likely acquire worn finish and other blemishes, so you need to be okay with that, with whatever weapon you carry.

I can't understand how this is such a contentious argument of extreme positions that nobody is advocating.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The guns I have that are keepsake or collectible valuable (C96 Mauser, gift from relative, etc.) are not the guns I would choose for self defense; for designated self defense weapons I have generic guns of proven reliability* which are readily replacable.

I am resigned to the prospect that in a self-defense situation, the gun will be impounded as evidence until the situation is resolved. I think of it as a fire extiguisher: if I need to use it, it is expended. I have three fire extinguishers at the current time. Backup.


__________________________
* As in, guns proven reliable based on spending hours and hundreds of rounds at the range or on the mountain; carrying while hiking or exploring. NOT guns reliable based on ads or web talk or reputation.

 

[TarDevil]

This thread has turned into an example of how everyone can agree on something, but we have to split hairs on the wording just so people can argue.



No, actually many firearms are NOT replaceable but NOBODY would suggest any firearm, regardless of its value be off limits to protect your family.



NOBODY would suggest downgrading to an inferior weapon for self defense, but a weapons monetary or collector value has nothing to do with its suitability for defense. Why would anybody put their 100 year old never fired Colt revolver in their nightstand, while their Glock is in the safe?



This thread is about understanding and accepting the reality of possibly losing your weapon, even if you have done nothing wrong. If you are okay with putting your most prized weapons in the primary positions of possible loss, it is nobody else's business. If you have the same confidence in less valuable or more easily replaced weapons, it would make practical sense to put them into 1st line primary usage. Especially with daily carry weapons, it has to be understood that they will likely acquire worn finish and other blemishes, so you need to be okay with that, with whatever weapon you carry.

I can't understand how this is such a contentious argument of extreme positions that nobody is advocating.

Well put.

 

[rtroha]

Even though you are entitled to have your property returned once you are cleared, if a dept or court system doesn't want you to get it back, they can easily tie it up in bureaucracy, and keep throwing endless hoops in your way, or even "accidentally" destroy your property. Once property is their custody, they not take care of it as you would, and things are often damaged just from careless handling. Then there is also the cosmetic wear and tear on any gun that is carried on a daily basis.

Luckily, in Ohio we have the following:

2923.163 Surrender of firearm to law enforcement officer.

If a law enforcement officer stops a person for any law enforcement purpose and the person voluntarily or pursuant to a request or demand of the officer surrenders a firearm to the officer, if a law enforcement officer stops a motor vehicle for any purpose and a person in the motor vehicle voluntarily or pursuant to a request or demand of the officer surrenders a firearm to the officer, or if a law enforcement officer otherwise seizes a firearm from a person, all of the following apply:

(A) If the law enforcement officer does not return the firearm to the person at the termination of the stop or otherwise promptly return the firearm to the person after the seizure of the firearm, the officer or other personnel at the officer's law enforcement agency shall maintain the integrity and identity of the firearm in such a manner so that if the firearm subsequently is to be returned to the person it can be identified and returned to the person in the same condition it was in when it was seized.

(B) If the law enforcement officer does not return the firearm to the person at the termination of the stop or otherwise promptly return the firearm to the person after the seizure of the firearm, if a court finds that a law enforcement officer failed to return the firearm to the person after the person has demanded the return of the firearm from the officer, and if the court orders a law enforcement officer to return the firearm to the person, in addition to any other relief ordered, the court also shall award reasonable costs and attorney's fees to the person who sought the order to return the firearm.

 

[Kleanbore]

The provisions of laws relating to the surrender of a firearm to a law enforcement officer are irrelevant here.

 

[armoredman]

Even if there is no criminal trial (cleared/justified shooting) it could be brought as evidence in a civil suit.

Except in Arizona - we have a state constitutional amendment that forbids civil suits for a justified action.

Is everyone here sniffing friggin' glue ?? Once again....no one is saying you shouldn't defend your life with a weapon that happens to be extremely valuable, if that is your ONLY option, the point is that it is vastly more prudent to pick ANOTHER, LESS EXPENSIVE weapon from your arsenal.

Rude much? I don't care what anyone thinks about that sidearm/rifle/carbine/musket I use to defend my life with. I choose to carry a sidearm I had some expensive work done on it to make it as reliable and accurate as possible. If the second worst happens, (worst is dying), and I lose it, I have other sidearms that work just fine to replace it while the court battle may be underway. I also train on and off duty, to include what is a "good" shoot and what isn't, i.e., proper use of the Use of Force Continuum. The price of the sidearm is figured into the profit/loss column.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by armoredman:

Except in Arizona - we have a state constitutional amendment that forbids civil suits for a justified action.

No, you do not.

A suit can be dismissed if the defendant presents a preponderance of evidence that the act had been justified.


What may have transpired in a criminal case is a horse of a different color.

That is true in a number of states.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Good lord.........miss the point much ??????
OBVIOUSLY, it would be preferable to forfeit an expensive firearm rather than lose your life, or the life of a loved one. NO KIDDING !!!
The point is (breathe deep, stick with me here), that with the absolute TINIEST bit of advance thought and effort, you can STILL save everyone's lives, yet ,at the same time, NOT lose a beloved and expensive firearm. Amazing !!
Is it really necessary to use the most expensive,irreplacable weapon you can get your hands on to defend yourself ? Or,if given the option, would you rather just use the trusty old Glock that you got off Armslist for $400?
Get it now ??????

Is everyone here sniffing friggin' glue ?? Once again....no one is saying you shouldn't defend your life with a weapon that happens to be extremely valuable, if that is your ONLY option, the point is that it is vastly more prudent to pick ANOTHER, LESS EXPENSIVE weapon from your arsenal.
And given that no one is threatning your life at THIS MOMENT, you clearly have the option of arranging this, beforehand.
I'm just baffled why this is such a difficult "theory" for some to grasp.

I'm confused why you're coming so unglued about someone else's decision that is based on their circumstances and is utterly irrelevant to you.

The gun is a chance at a last-ditch saving throw. If you're not in that deadly situation, it's just a comfort on your hip. Some people are more comforted by their $2,500 Les Baer than by their $325 Bersa. Both are good guns. If you need it, it probably won't matter which you had. But some people are willing to trade the risk of losing their expensive gun for the comfort they get from its quality and familiarity to them. In any event, if they can afford a $2,500 Les Baer, they'll either get it back at some point after a shooting, or they'll be a convicted felon, and won't be able to get the Les Baer or the Bersa.

How does this in any way affect your decision not to do the same?

 

[Jeff White]

I'm not going to go back and edit all the posts concerning the argument over using an expensive gun for self defense. I'm just going to say that that conversation is off topic and we're going to end it now.

The next post about it closes the thread.

 

[MIL-DOT]

This thread has turned into an example of how everyone can agree on something, but we have to split hairs on the wording just so people can argue.



No, actually many firearms are NOT replaceable but NOBODY would suggest any firearm, regardless of its value be off limits to protect your family.



NOBODY would suggest downgrading to an inferior weapon for self defense, but a weapons monetary or collector value has nothing to do with its suitability for defense. Why would anybody put their 100 year old never fired Colt revolver in their nightstand, while their Glock is in the safe?



This thread is about understanding and accepting the reality of possibly losing your weapon, even if you have done nothing wrong. If you are okay with putting your most prized weapons in the primary positions of possible loss, it is nobody else's business. If you have the same confidence in less valuable or more easily replaced weapons, it would make practical sense to put them into 1st line primary usage. Especially with daily carry weapons, it has to be understood that they will likely acquire worn finish and other blemishes, so you need to be okay with that, with whatever weapon you carry.

I can't understand how this is such a contentious argument of extreme positions that nobody is advocating.

As TarDevil said above, "well put". It's reassuring to find that at least a couple people in this thread are able to grasp a simple, logical point, rather than digging their heels into an emotional, irrational argument.
At the risk of more :banghead:, I'll try this one more time:
-No one is denying anyone's right to do as they please with their own property. OK???
-No one CARES what anyone else does with their own property. This has turned into a discussion on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of using your most beloved, premium pistol in a situation that puts it at risk. This is an internet forum, it's what we do here. No harm,no foul. OK??
-No one is saying you should refrain from using an expensive/irreplacable weapon to defend yourself or family, IF that's what it comes down tK??
Hell, if you have to bust a Ming Dynasty vase over someone's head to protect your children, then that's fine.......IF you absolutely HAD to.
But to consciously put that priceless Ming vase in a position where it's your first line of defense, would be un-ncessarilly stupid and irresponsible. RIGHT?
This argument about shooting a custom $3000 pistol "better" than your Glock,S&W,Ruger,etc., so therefore it JUST GOTS to be your #1 go-to SD gun, is just self-indulgent nonsense.
Do what you want, nobody cares, seriously, but spare me the nonsense that nothing but the most-expensive, best-of-the-best-of-the-very-best is good enough to shoot a bad-guy with.

 

[Jeff White]

and with that the thread is done!