How long will the police keep my weapon?

If you shoot someone, how long the police keep your gun will be the least of your worries.

In general, it could be a "long time" or "forever."
 
I think that is probably a drastic oversimplification.

There has to be a whole range of circumstances in which it is so clear that a shooting was done in self defense that there is no need to arrest the shooter, or confiscate (or "keep") the weapon.

Suggesting that there is one likely scenario and no others is pretty disingenuous and does not serve the discussion.

Why would the police give trouble to, or confiscate the weapon on, a homeowner who shoots and kills a violent home invader, whose weapon is discovered at the scene? Why would they hassle a person who clearly responded with lethal force when confronted by a carjacker?

I would add that in numerous states, there are laws that protect self-defenders from lawsuits arising from their use of their right to defend themselves. Florida, where I live, is one.


-azurefly
 
Depends on the case type and how it plays out in court. Convictions vs appeals. Not guilty vs. deffered prosecution. Was the shooter charged as well as the shootee? Civil trial after shooting with the court using the same gun as evidence twice, now in YOUR trial. Could be six months, could be never and in cases where there is a homicide, justified or not don't expect it back any time soon.

Just be sure if you shoot anyone for any reason they WILL take the gun as evidence no matter the cause.
 
Why would the police give trouble to, or confiscate the weapon on, a homeowner who shoots and kills a violent home invader, whose weapon is discovered at the scene? Why would they hassle a person who clearly responded with lethal force when confronted by a carjacker?
Click to expand...
There was a self-defense shooting here in MA a while ago. A drunk no-good was trying to get into a house. The woman opened the door to see what was up (bad idea). The drunk robber came towards her in a threatening manner. She got her gun, warned him. He laughed at her and kept coming. She shot him once, in the neck. He ran out and collapsed in the street. He survived. He had a very long rap sheet and was well known to local law enforcement. He was arrested at the hospital, charged and convicted.

She was arrested at her home, her License to Carry was suspended, and all guns and ammunition were seized. It took 1 1/2 years before she got her License to Carry, guns, and ammunition returned. She was never charged.

MA may be the "worst case", but the reality is that shootings are seldom black and white. It's hard for the police to figure out exactly what happened, particularly when the perp is lying, the witnesses are contradictory (as they often are, not out of malice, just because people aren't good witnesses), and our hero is so amped on adrenalin that he isn't thinking clearly. So the SOP is to arrest everyone, seize the gun, so that no matter where the investigation takes them, they've got everyone and all the evidence.

Is it possible that you would not be arrested after a defensive shooting? I suppose it is possible, but I suspect highly unlikely.

Plan for the worst case. If it works out better, then great.
 
"Why would the police give trouble to, or confiscate the weapon on, a homeowner who shoots and kills a violent home invader, whose weapon is discovered at the scene?"

Gun owners are almost always thoughtful, reasonable people, so if they have any fault, it is thinking that the government, and especially the police, will look objectively at the situation and make a reasoned response that protects the rights of the obvious law-abiding citizen. That may be true in some cases, maybe even most cases, but it is not always true and should not be counted on. Look at New Orleans. Isn't it clear that the NO police chief would do anything he could think of to keep from giving you your gun back after a justified shooting?

Tim
 
Why would the police give trouble to, or confiscate the weapon on, a homeowner who shoots and kills a violent home invader, whose weapon is discovered at the scene? Why would they hassle a person who clearly responded with lethal force when confronted by a carjacker?
Click to expand...

Outside of the need for evidence gathering, there are a lot of reasons why officials will hassle people by confiscating a weapon. Because some officials don't like firearms and/or civilians owning them. Because some don't want to be responsible for a gun "getting back on the streets." Because some people have sticky fingers.
 
It depends VERY LARGELY on where you live. I know a guy in Georgia who shot and killed an intruder. The guy was never arrested nor was his gun taken. The preliminary police report indicated that it was a legit self-defense shooting. I heard a couple of similar stories on the news when I lived in North Carolina.

However, if you live in CA, NY, IL, or NJ, the same situation could be handled far differently.

Also, cities within the same state will handle things differently. Like the realtor mantra: Location, location, location.
 
In general, a firearm used in a shooting will be kept at least until the Grand Jury hears the case.

If the Grand Jury returns a no-bill, there is no further reason to keep the firearm, and you should be able to retrieve your property by way of a polite letter to the head of the agency that seized your weapon.

If the Grand Jury returns an indictment, the weapon will be kept until the case has been disposed of, and, depending on the disposition, mayor may not be able to be retrieved.

LawDog
 
They weapon saved your life, it has served its purpose. Not being charged with a crime is the proof you were correct, if the weapon makes it back to you, that is just a bonus.

That is why you should have more than one defensive weapon.
 
I would expect the powers that be to take the weapon

at least until the case is through. Regardless of if you are cleared, that could take several months or more or charged and then found not guilty. them taking it is like first mentioned, the least of your troubles.

I can remember reading a story about guns on boats while being out of the country and the whole final point was don't have them. Why, because the crooks in a foreign country broke onto a boat they thought was empty and the owner pulled a gun and tried to shoot them so they killed him and his wife... when the crooks were caught they said they wouldn't have killed them if they hadn't had a gun on the boat. So the person writing the article used the 'reasoning' that this (having a gun on the boat) was a bad idea. Obviously the whole premise only works if you believe the criminals.... kind of like gun control laws....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top