Alan,
Gem and I seem to be overlooking one point, the anti gun hot dog prosecutor, one that shares the opinions held by some in police management, and possibly some street cops too, that being that they, the citizenry do not need, nor should they have those things, guns.
A person involved in a shooting will also have to worry about the jurors in the event the case reaches trial. It has been mentioned already in this thread...but the black hole that is the jury does not produce predictable results.
I do not offer the following anecdote as a defining example, merely as an illustration. I recently completed a semester of Trial Advocacy in my third year of law school. Our final exam is a short trial. The instructor is an actual judge and the trial is conducted with undergrad polisci students as jurors. The mock case itself was a murder/self-defense case.
The base facts were as follows. We had a smaller statured man (5'6" 140 lbs.) facing off against a larger man (6'2" 195 lbs.) outside of a bar. The larger man was advancing on the smaller man as the smaller man gave ground. As the larger man closed the gap, the smaller man drew a gun and fired one shot, killing his attacker. These facts were not in dispute. What was in dispute was whether or not the large man was carrying a knife (or was known to carry a knife) and if, as a result, the defendant was justified in using deadly force.
The case DID NOT address the legality or illegality of the defendant's choice to carry a firearm in the first place.
Long story short. I worked this case with my partner as defense counsel. I also sat through a classmate's trial...and further, acted as a witness in a third. The result in the trial I conducted was a hung jury. The result in the both the trial I watched, and the trial I acted as a defense witness in, was a 1st degree murder verdict against the defendant.
At the conclusion of each case, the jury actually deliberates in front of the judge and the students...so we got to see and hear the decision making process. In my case we got a hung jury...with the holdout wanting 2nd degree murder. Her reason was this..."he carried a gun and thus he was looking to use it."
In the case I watched, despite the fact that the key prosecution witness admitted that the decedent carried a knife, the jury returned a 1st degree murder verdict. I asked the jury panel afterwards what their political position was regarding firearms. One juror explained..."I believe in the illegification of handguns, but I didn't let that factor into my decision." Another stated that she believed "that people have a right to own guns and to defend themselves but that they shouldn't carry and look for a fight."
In the third case, the jury decided that the defense's character witness (me) was not credible and thus tossed the whole notion that the decedent was known for carrying a knife.
What does all this mean...? Hell if I know....other than to say that we cannot expect a jury to understand the concept of self-defense...much less rely on them to apply the facts to the law accurately.
In short....the prosecutor's office CAN come after you. MIGHT come after you...MIGHT use the fact that you are a CC permit holder...a gunnie and/or a subscriber to SWAT magazine against you...and a jury MIGHT decide that you were itching to get all Dirty Harry on the bad guys of the world.
As always...tread lightly.
That being said, I'm not a lawyer and YMMV.
