Remember whatever you use won't be available to sell to help fund an attorney. There are plenty of reliable readily available guns to use for self defense.

__________________
-Matt

A certain FL homeowner shot a home invader with a .44 Blackhawk and still had it to show off for the evening news report. And the suspect lived, by the way.

So the answer is maybe, maybe not.

Many times "special" firearms are simply lost by the department. Be it Game and Fish or FBI. That is why I quit hunting with my aged Win High Wall and bought a Ruger #1.

Friend borrowed my sawed of ( but legal) mod 97 and killed himself. The Sheriff's office would not wipe it off to keep the blood from rusting the metal but after a while I got it back.

Just get a receipt from the officer or department with the serial # and description of anything special about the firearm. Call department, the DA and maybe even the judge every now and then to let them know you are not going away, and want the firearm back.

I think the real difference between those who worry about a firearm being seized as evidence and those who don't is income.

Obviously folks who are *ahem* "financially secure" shall we say, aren't concerned by the prospect of losing a high dollar firearm because they probably have no shortage of firearms to replace it with, can afford to go out and buy an exact duplicate, and thusly are less likely to grow attached to their carry gun.
This also explains why so many of them appear to be under the impression that inexpensive firearms are insufficiently reliable for self-defense, because they've either never had to purchase firearms on a budget, or otherwise haven't had to in such a long time that they're basing their expectations of budget-priced firearms on the old "Ring of Fire" guns of decades passed like Bryco/Jennings, Raven, Lorcin, etc.

Meanwhile, those of us who can't afford to easily replace a Colt, S&W Performance Center, Kimber Eclipse or a SIG P22X Equinox, much less an Ed Brown, Les Baer, Nighthawk, etc are carrying less expensive firearms which are perfectly suitable for self-defense that we can afford to replace, and more expensive firearms are reserved for the range and are far more precious to us because they have to be saved up for, ergo they're not as easily replaced.

So yeah, if you can easily afford to purchase premium/custom firearms with ease and carry them, thus making the prospect of losing one less of a concern, more power to you, and I'm sure that if everyone could afford to do so, then they would do the same. However, try to understand that not everyone can afford to do that, and that in spite of what your opinions of inexpensive firearms may be, they do tend to go bang whenever the trigger is pulled, so it is indeed possible for someone to successfully defend themselves with inexpensive firearms. In fact, police departments across the globe have been known to carry cheaper firearms such as Glocks or M&Ps, (non-Performance Center) not to mention even cheaper firearms like Rugers.

Now I know that it's highly likely that someone may reply to this with the proposition that if one cannot afford to purchase premium firearms with ease then they most certainly cannot afford the legal expenses of a lawsuit, which is valid, but with all due respect, it goes against pure animal instinct for one to allow themselves to be murdered, and police aren't typically quite fast enough to respond to an impromptu home invasion before anyone has been hurt, assuming that the victim even had enough time to call the police between their door getting kicked in at 3:00am.
Also, as crazy as it sounds, despite lacking money to afford some of the finer things in life, folks do tend to enjoy living just enough to want to go on living, even under harsh conditions such as prisons if it comes right down to it, so although the potential expences and consequences of self-defense may be beyond what the common man is prepared for, we gotta do it anyway.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I frequently see people comment about fear of carrying a particular (expensive) gun because it may be held in evidence and/or become "lost" while being held.

I wonder how many people have ACTUALLY had this happen to them, and if there are laws regarding compensation to owners for a gun lost while in evidence?

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

I think it's pretty uncommon. Haven't heard about it with a firearm, but my agency was forced to pay for a rather expensive piece of jewelry that was purportedly taken (there remains some doubt about its presence at the scene), along with other property, during an arrest. The jewelry never surfaced, and the Yankee Gov't eventually wrote a check . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

You may be right in some cases.... but from my prospective it's a matter of having the "best" tool for me if my life or the safety of my family is at risk.

The chances of actually using your firearm are very small... not like you're going to be giving up a gun a month or even a year....... it's unlikely you will give up a gun in your lifetime.

I could probably afford some/all of the guns you listed..... but I, for the most part, carry a 3rd Gen S&W or Beretta 92 Compact...... $500-800 guns I bought for way less 25 years, or more, ago. Those are the guns I shoot the most and meet my personal needs.

Ya, I've got a spare in the safe .... that I bought in the 90s for $400 or less.

I just put a higher value on my life or my family's safety than any gun in my safe ..... hell if it came down to the choice of my kid's safety and shooting my Reg. Magnum.... I wouldn't hesitate.

To others my response is; buy the best gun that you can afford and works best for you..... be that a Wilson Combat or a Glock , M&P or Shield. If you have to use it and lose it........ in the end be happy you're around to cry over the loss of the gun vs your child.

No. It's confidence . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I always operate under the premise that my gun will be confiscated and quite possibly held for a very long time. That is why I have duplicates of my carry guns. (at least that is what I told my wife).

Side note, my carry guns are not guns whose value I would really be unhappy about losing for an extended period of time. Currently P365's.

Someone posted the comment above, and it's very black and white. Arguably a little too black and white. It's the kind of too black and white view of the world that also leads to officers rolling up on a scene and then reacting or overreacting before they take the time to figure out what's happening and what action is needed.

It's emblematic of a risk averse approach to law enforcement focused on controlling the scene as a justification for whatever comes next. It's an "arrest them all and let the courts sort them out" approach to law enforcement, rather than a focus on using appropriate officer discretion and maintaining order.

It's the kind of black and white interpretation that when taken too far results in other people overreacting and screaming to "defund" the police, when what's needed is better training on appropriate use of officer discretion.

---

Let's look at the OP's question from a castle doctrine perspective in NC - and when seizing a weapon for evidentiary purposes makes sense and when it doesn't - because it sometimes doesn't make sense.

In NC, the castle doctrine extends to your vehicle. If you pull up to a stop light, someone tries to pull you out of your car, you are justified in using lethal force to prevent that. It's not about preventing your car from being stolen, it's about the threat to your life when you are being pulled from your car. You have a right to assume they intend to kill you or cause serious bodily injury to you, or to family members or others in your car.

Now...there can always be more to the story and the rest of the story might have an impact on the legality of the shoot. One of the things to consider is that in NC you forfeit the right to self defense if you were initially the aggressor. In the above case, if the you, as the person being pulled from the car had cut off the guy pulling you from the car, got in a verbal argument with him, flipped him off and then threatened him before you proceeded to the next stop light, it's now not nearly as clean. In that case you should expect to be arrested and held until the District Attorney's office can decide whether you should be charged. That decision will hinge on whether or not it can be determined if you had initially been the aggressor and or whether or not your actions after that event were sufficient to constitute a "retreat" that restored your right to self defense. Maybe. Maybe not, it'll all come down to subtle details and an arrest is warranted.

Either way, if you did something like, you are in fact an idiot. If you really plan on carrying a handgun for self defense and want to be able to use self defense as a justification, you need to be very polite and learn how to turn the other cheek, right up to the point that a credible threat of death or serious bodily injury actually occurs, with no aggravating or escalating behavior on your part. An armed society is a polite society - not just because people carry guns, but because they want to preserve the right to use them when necessary.

In that case, since you are being arrested (in large par as a result of being a hot headed idiot) taking custody of your firearm naturally follows. Whether it is evidence or not, the officer(s) at the scene are not going to just leave it there at the scene.

On the other hand if there is no evidence of a precipitating event or you contributing to the events leading up to the shoot, and there are witnesses who saw the guy you shot hanging out on the corner, approaching your car and pulling you out without any provocation, it's a lot clearer what happened and that your use of lethal force was justified.

If the guy you shot happens to have a prior record or outstanding warrants for car theft, assault, etc, it's even clearer.

In the extreme, if you also had your wife and/or children in the car, you also had reason to fear what the guy you shot planned to do with them. If the guy you shot also has a prior record or outstanding warrants for assault, rape, etc, and there are also witnesses who support your statement of what happened, then it's crystal clear.

In this latter case, you should not be arrested and there is also no need to take your handgun into evidence. An officer is certainly justified in securing the handgun at the scene until it becomes apparent what happened. It also makes sense to verify your story in terms of counting and accounting for the spent brass at the scene and cross checking that - and you account of events - by verifying the number of rounds left in the magazine. It also makes sense to document the serial number on the handgun and back it up with a picture of the handgun, magazine and remaining rounds. Then give the gun and his concealed carry permit back with the guy when you send him on his way.

In that case there isn't any real value in confiscating the firearm. There is no evidence you committed a crime (Although that would be different in a state like VA where a self defense shoot requires a second degree murder charge and an affirmative defense).

Worst case, the officer has evidence in the form of one or more bullets in the guy who was shot that can be matched to the gun you documented at the scene at a later date in the unlikely and unforeseen circumstance that evidence arises that it might not have been as clean as you and everyone else involved thought.

That's particularly true with a handgun like a CZ where the serial number is on the frame, the slide and the barrel, precluding the ability to swap slides and barrels to confound future ballistic testing. That effort would in and of itself be incriminating, as would disposing of the gun.

In short, there's not much if any upside to seizing a firearm in a shoot that is clearly a good shoot with ample evidence at the scene to confirm it was a justified use of self defense. Seizing a firearm in that situation is just risk averse butt covering, and once an officer goes down that road, other risk averse people will ensure it takes months or years to return it to the owner.

If that evidence of a clearly justified use of self defense is not present and the status of the shoot is not obvious then the firearm should be taken into evidence, but that will be based on the ambiguous nature of the shoot, or perhaps a clear violation of concealed carry privileges of the shooter, where you'd confiscate the concealed carry permit as well, until the issue is sorted out.

BB57, not sure in what state you practice law but the many times I was in court as a cop, prior behavior was never a substantiating circumstance indicative of a crime. Jurors were told to disregard the mention and lawyers were reprimanded.

Also, as a cop I was not in the position to determine if a crime had been committed. That was up to the Prosecutor or the Grand Jury.

I am surprised it works that way in North Carolina.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

This whole thread makes me laugh. I have to wonder if there is anyone on this Forum, except maybe a brand new shooter who just joined (has to be both, I'll wager) who doesn't have another gun to carry if his or hers is confiscated after a shooting, permanently or temporarily.

Moreover, while NONE of the expensive guns listed above in the quote interest me, if you own one of those fancy firearms what are the odds that that is the sole gun that you own? You might hate to lose, even short term, your 686+PC but, seriously, was that your first gun purchase and the only gun in the house? People who own such firearms are firearms aficionados and I will blanket wager some sum of money that not one gun owner in America who owns a premium firearm owns just that firearm. With exceptions for grandchildren who just turned 21 or got married and a Les Baer 1911 was in the wedding present or coming of age present.

People, as a rule, carry well made firearms for personal defense without resorting to multi-zero dollar guns. What can you do with a Nighthawk or a 686+PC that you cannot do with a Rock River 1911 or any K or L frame (not including competition shooting)?

I think that the last thing anyone truly worries about is the seizure of a firearm after a justified shooting. Admittedly, there are a whole lot of new shooters out there who do only own one gun presently but we're back to my wager - do you think some new shooter who is in need of a self defense firearm for the first time in his or her life bought a Les Baer or a PC gun of any kind?

Not too many folks will buy a Ferrari as their first car, either.

__________________
Come and take it!!

I've never seen a weapon used in a killing or wounding in my jurisdiction NOT taken as evidence. Whether the homicide or injury ends up being justifiable is not a determination to be made at the scene, it's a decision made by either the DA or a grand jury. To make their decision in a just manner, that means being certain the firearm witnesses and participants say was used truly was the one used and that it was in the same condition when the evidence is forensically examined and/or considered in court as it was at the time. This includes apparent suicides.

I'd add that New Mexico has a really good system for death investigations; it involves police, the office of the (state) medical investigator, and district attorneys at a minimum. In a very clear case of self-defense homicide, the shooter might not go to jail but the firearm used dam' well better be taken as evidence and sent for forensic examination. Doing less means disciplinary action for the officer(s) who did not collect all relevant evidence; within our system it would be police malpractice.

In any deadly shooting in which I fired any rounds, my duty weapons were taken (I was always given replacements from district inventory immediately) for forensic examination.

A friend of mine had his shotgun confiscated, and needed a lawyer to get it back. And when the cost exceeded the price of the shotgun, he still wanted it back. (They wouldn't give him the time of day to get it back either)

He asked politely for his shotgun back. There wasn't any, "we're gonna give it back to you, just wait" or "our investigation isnt over". It was a flat out "no!". And "get outta here".
Finally when he got it back, it was all scratched up like they threw it on top of a pile of other metal .

"Choose wisely"

That's unacceptable.

He seems to be discussing what happens during the investigation, not the trial. Federally, and in Missouri state courts, you can’t bring up prior criminal history unless the defendant testifies. If the charge is such that it can’t be brought without a qualifying prior conviction, the parties almost always, if not always, will stipulate that the defendant meets the requirements for the charge to be brought, and that is all.

I can always tell a BB57 post is coming when I start at the bottom and scroll up . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Some jurisdictions are highly "anti-gun" and this sort of thing can happen.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

There might be more to the story than the selected bits depicted here.

There always is . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Have carry insurance like USCCA and carry the best you can afford.

__________________
Dave Ramsey Cultist

Might just be me, retired, time on my hands, and a degree of intolerance for bureaucratic nonsense, but I would be suing them for full value plus court costs, plus legal fees, and request punitive damages.

If nothing else, I would make sure they got some good exercise running back and forth to the courthouse, producing documents, explaining policies and procedures (see what those nice publications say about safeguarding property!), and sitting around in hallways for hours, days, weeks, months waiting for each one's turn on the witness stand. My attorney would probably have an investigator inside their property room with cameras for days documenting their practices, and doing it under a court order.

Any time a public official comes into possession of an item of property there is a duty to safeguard that property and take all reasonable steps to prevent damage or loss. In most states public officials who willfully or negligently fail to perform a lawful duty may be subject to criminal charges of misfeasance in office (or some similar terminology).

It worked the same way every time I was in court and testified in a case.

However, I'm not talking about what happens later in court, I'm talking about what happens on scene.

Even in a traffic stop, the officer will check ID and check for wants and warrants. That is not prohibited. Using that information to support a decision to arrest or not is just common sense.

In other words, if the shooter claimed he was pulled from the car, and the guy he shot or shot at has a history of arrests and convictions for similar behavior, it supports the shooter's statement, and gives it additional credibility. Add in a few witnesses who support his side of the story and there's a strong case for letting the guy go home, rather than arresting him and possibly putting his already traumatized kids in foster care while dad sits in jail. The DA can still decide to charge him later.

The reverse is also true. If the shooter makes that claim, but also has a prior record of criminal arrests or convictions for assault, disorderly conduct, etc, an officer will probably have a great deal more skepticism in believing the shooter was totally innocent of any precipitating or exacerbating behavior in the events leading up to the shoot.

Would that everyone so treated went to these lengths, then we could get the fools to stop such behavior.

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

In this situation , having my firearm confiscated by LEO , is going to be a minimal concern....

My concern is the lawsuit that will be coming my way....

Bad guy breaks into my house - I shoot the bad guy...
phone call #1 is to LEO
phone call #2 is to U.S. Concealed Carry Association | Born to Protect

If bad guy lives , I will get sued
If bad guy does not live , I will get sued

I’ve worked several shootings that weren’t prosecuted due to claims of self-defense, some of which were pretty shaky.

I’ve never been contacted about a civil suit. I was the lead investigator, so if a suit had been filed I would have been. Lawyers sure weren’t shy about bugging me about DUI fatalities and accidental deaths.

I know at least one local CCW class that is basically a live infomercial for USCCA. Its like getting the hard sell on a time-share.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

Same here. I used to get contacted about every six or eight months for five years regarding a Toyota 4 Runner that rolled over, shredded the top, and killed four members of a family, with a two-three year the only survivor. Same with a police pursuit of a naked man who carjacked an old lady at the hospital after he balked at inpatient mental health treatment that ended poorly. At the time, I was a white shirt in a public safety department. We did police and fire, equally. All I did on both was supervise the extrication operations at the crash scenes . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .