TexasCHLforum.com

I'm not sure how often in Texas a good guy's gun gets confiscated by police if it's used in legitimate self defense. Could vary a lot depending upon jurisdiction. Some states apparently do this routinely, even if it is obviously a legitimate self defense shooting. Of course, all that this does is deprive a law abiding citizen of his right to keep possession of his weapon. He may never get it back, or only get it back much later, probably beaten up, rusted, not maintained, and only after hiring a lawyer to intervene.
How about a law that says police may NOT confiscate a citizen's weapon as evidence unless they make the determination that the shooting was not self defense and actually arrest the citizen. Then, if the citizen is not indicted within a certain limited time period, his gun MUST be returned to him within a given number of days.
As a further part of this, I would also love to see the arresting agency made liable for any damages to the gun as a result of poor storage, handling, etc., but that's probably hoping for too much.
Charles, is this totally out of the question?

RossA wrote:I'm not sure how often in Texas a good guy's gun gets confiscated by police if it's used in legitimate self defense. Could vary a lot depending upon jurisdiction. Some states apparently do this routinely, even if it is obviously a legitimate self defense shooting. Of course, all that this does is deprive a law abiding citizen of his right to keep possession of his weapon. He may never get it back, or only get it back much later, probably beaten up, rusted, not maintained, and only after hiring a lawyer to intervene.
How about a law that says police may NOT confiscate a citizen's weapon as evidence unless they make the determination that the shooting was not self defense and actually arrest the citizen. Then, if the citizen is not indicted within a certain limited time period, his gun MUST be returned to him within a given number of days.
As a further part of this, I would also love to see the arresting agency made liable for any damages to the gun as a result of poor storage, handling, etc., but that's probably hoping for too much.
Charles, is this totally out of the question?

It sounds good. I don't know about making the agency responsible for neglecting a gun, but I could get behind this scenario:

The weapon must be returned to the owner within ten days of the following circumstances:
1- The owner is not charged with a crime (this time frame could vary depending on the length of the investigation, but I would think 3 months would be sufficient)
2- The owner is No Billed by a grand jury
3-The owner is found "not guilty" at trial

Since the weapon would be evidence, preventing the confiscation, would be difficult, since the police do not make the final determination of any charges. Also, just because someone tells them the gun at the scene was the gun used, it is not proof until ballistic testing is done. This could be true in a home defense situation where the owner used a very expensive gun in the shooting, but switches it out for a cheaper gun before the police arrive to avoid having the good one confiscated.

A gun may be seized for evidence, to limit the police in such a minor might cripple an investigation. I don't know how big of a problem confiscating a weapon after a fatal shooting is but replacing a weapon would be the least of my concerns after such a shooting.

That is the whole point. Seizing the good guy's gun is not evidence of anything. The good guy didn't commit the crime, so the gun isn't evidence.
Seizing the bad guy's gun is obviously evidence that he was committing a crime, but if the good guy isn't charged with a crime, his gun is not evidence.

RossA wrote:That is the whole point. Seizing the good guy's gun is not evidence of anything. The good guy didn't commit the crime, so the gun isn't evidence.
Seizing the bad guy's gun is obviously evidence that he was committing a crime, but if the good guy isn't charged with a crime, his gun is not evidence.

Every death, is initially investigated as a homicide, simply because all evidence is collected and then can be used to either confirm or eliminate suspects etc. Otherwise evidence can be lost or tampered with.
If the investigation proves to be self defense, or otherwise justified, and no charges are filed, I agree the gun should be returned as soon as possible.

Arrests don't always happen at the scene, and may not occur at all. The evidence and reports are forwarded to the county attorney for determination of charges. The county attorney may convene a grand jury to assess the case.

All of this takes time, and it is unfortunate for the law abiding owner to wait to get his/her gun back. But once a determination is made to not file charges the agency has no further reason to retain the gun.

RossA wrote:I'm not sure how often in Texas a good guy's gun gets confiscated by police if it's used in legitimate self defense. Could vary a lot depending upon jurisdiction. Some states apparently do this routinely, even if it is obviously a legitimate self defense shooting. Of course, all that this does is deprive a law abiding citizen of his right to keep possession of his weapon. He may never get it back, or only get it back much later, probably beaten up, rusted, not maintained, and only after hiring a lawyer to intervene.
How about a law that says police may NOT confiscate a citizen's weapon as evidence unless they make the determination that the shooting was not self defense and actually arrest the citizen. Then, if the citizen is not indicted within a certain limited time period, his gun MUST be returned to him within a given number of days.
As a further part of this, I would also love to see the arresting agency made liable for any damages to the gun as a result of poor storage, handling, etc., but that's probably hoping for too much.
Charles, is this totally out of the question?

We already have such a concept, at least within the current legal system it is supposed to be the concept.
It is called "presumed innocent until proven guilty" That means an individual should be treated as innocent until they are proven guilty. The exact opposite of this is the prevailing atmosphere within the current legal system.
Were an individual actually treated as innocent of wrongdoing until proven otherwise within our current legal system, their firearm would not be taken from them as that would be a presumption of wrongdoing on their part.
Neither would they be 'taken downtown' as the saying goes for interrogation or detainment unless the scene provides a bonafide probable cause to do so for either of these two things.
Were we actually treated as presumed innocent until proven guilty, no action of any sort should be taken against an individual until a bonafide investigation and likely a bonafide open and accessible to the public grand jury proceeding proves there is grounds to do so. Then treat them as a suspect in a crime as allowed by law.
Adding another 'law' doesn't solve the situation as the current 'law' is for the most part not being followed or essentially is being ignored.

Jusme wrote:

RossA wrote:That is the whole point. Seizing the good guy's gun is not evidence of anything. The good guy didn't commit the crime, so the gun isn't evidence.
Seizing the bad guy's gun is obviously evidence that he was committing a crime, but if the good guy isn't charged with a crime, his gun is not evidence.

Every death, is initially investigated as a homicide, simply because all evidence is collected and then can be used to either confirm or eliminate suspects etc. Otherwise evidence can be lost or tampered with.
If the investigation proves to be self defense, or otherwise justified, and no charges are filed, I agree the gun should be returned as soon as possible.

Arrests don't always happen at the scene, and may not occur at all. The evidence and reports are forwarded to the county attorney for determination of charges. The county attorney may convene a grand jury to assess the case.

All of this takes time, and it is unfortunate for the law abiding owner to wait to get his/her gun back. But once a determination is made to not file charges the agency has no further reason to retain the gun.

Every death in the hands of another is a homicide. Whether or not it is a criminal act (murder or negligent) or a justified act (self defense or the defense of another) is up to the justice system to decide, not the police. Until, the innocence or justification is determined by the justice system, the firearm is evidence and should be held until that time. The two incidents that I am aware of, the firearm was returned to the owner after grand jury no-bill and it was without incident or attorney involvement. I guess that could vary, county to county.

Do you think they should let the bad guy keep his gun until he is charged? The point is they don't know what determination the District Attorney will make as to who's to be charged or not charged. The police don't make that determination. The courts do. So they basically have to take the weapon until it's determined by DA if charges are justified. Now on returning the weapon if no charges are made I think should also be determined by the DA.

The Wall wrote:Do you think they should let the bad guy keep his gun until he is charged? The point is they don't know what determination the District Attorney will make as to who's to be charged or not charged. The police don't make that determination. The courts do. So they basically have to take the weapon until it's determined by DA if charges are justified. Now on returning the weapon if no charges are made I think should also be determined by the DA.

If no charges are justified the DA should not be able to determine if the rightful owner should have the weapon returned. The legal weapon should be returned to the rightful and legal owner. The DA is not a dictator but they are servants to the people.

Was involved in a Federal lawsuit and some of my personal items were exhibits in the case. Not firearms. Never got my "exhibits" back. Did win the case.

Don't limit yourself to one gun...

twomillenium wrote:

Jusme wrote:

RossA wrote:That is the whole point. Seizing the good guy's gun is not evidence of anything. The good guy didn't commit the crime, so the gun isn't evidence.
Seizing the bad guy's gun is obviously evidence that he was committing a crime, but if the good guy isn't charged with a crime, his gun is not evidence.

Every death, is initially investigated as a homicide, simply because all evidence is collected and then can be used to either confirm or eliminate suspects etc. Otherwise evidence can be lost or tampered with.
If the investigation proves to be self defense, or otherwise justified, and no charges are filed, I agree the gun should be returned as soon as possible.

Arrests don't always happen at the scene, and may not occur at all. The evidence and reports are forwarded to the county attorney for determination of charges. The county attorney may convene a grand jury to assess the case.

All of this takes time, and it is unfortunate for the law abiding owner to wait to get his/her gun back. But once a determination is made to not file charges the agency has no further reason to retain the gun.

Every death in the hands of another is a homicide. Whether or not it is a criminal act (murder or negligent) or a justified act (self defense or the defense of another) is up to the justice system to decide, not the police. Until, the innocence or justification is determined by the justice system, the firearm is evidence and should be held until that time. The two incidents that I am aware of, the firearm was returned to the owner after grand jury no-bill and it was without incident or attorney involvement. I guess that could vary, county to county.

Here's a different scenario on holding a firearm as evidence. I had almost all my firearms stolen in 1995. More than a year later I received a call from a detective with my my local police asking if I had a particular pistol stolen and if it was located would I want it returned. I thought to myself, as you probably are as well, that absolutley I'd want it back and informed him I would. It was explained to me the pistol had been used in an armed robery and the actor was caught red handed. Of course it would be held as evidence until after the trial, which I understood completely. I was given the name of the hijacker and maybe the case number, but I know he gave me the name. I wrote down his name and the detective's name and date of the offense. After a few months had passed I called the detective about the case and he said it hadn't gone to trial yet and if I still wanted the pistol back he'd let me know. I would call about every three months to check and I was always told the detective was off or on a different shift or on vacation and never talked to him again for a period of at least two years from the last conversation we'd had even though I had left numerous messages. I finally just gave up. Not too long after I gave up I happened to run into a guy I grew up with, who after retiring from the Houston Police Dept. went to work for Harris County District Attorney Johnny Holmes. I mentioned my stolen pistol and the time frame along with the suspect's name. He had a good laugh when I told him about the case and that he guy was using my stolen Ruger SA .357 Blackhawk to rob a store and was caught in the act and had apparently decided a cowboy gun was not the best choice for a shootout with the police. Within two weeks I received a little post card from my local police department stating they had my weapon in the evidence holding division and if I didn't pick it up within two weeks it would be disposed of. As soon as I could I went to pick it up. As she was doing the paperwork the lady in charge of the "evidence division" (it was a large closet) mentioned she knew me. Her older brother was a friend of mine when we were teenagers adn she remembered I had a twin brother. (Not the HPD LEO friend) She said the pistol had been there a long, long time and she was surprised it was still there. After signing her log I took the white paper bag with a string tied around it with a large tag and left. When I got to my vehicle I looked at the tag and the case disposition date was about three month's after the attempted robbery had taken place. Why the detective never told me that the first time I called is anyone's guess. Why he never returned my phone call was also strange. There was a pretty good size ding on the barrel at the muzzle, which I assume happened when he dropped it and it was a little beat up with some minor scratches. I saw my friend at a high school reunion and he told me the guy had plead guilty to the charge and told me how much time he got which I can't recall. I never did find out what "disposed of" meant because the woman who returned it was a little vague about what happens to firearms. This is one of two of the stolen firearms I now have in my possession. I had to buy the other one back, but that's another story. It just shows that every department has widely varying policies regarding returning firearms held as evidence.

If your pistol is evidence consider it gone.

Abraham wrote:If your pistol is evidence consider it gone.

In most instances I would agree. Sad but true.

Anything seized by the government should be returned in good condition if the person isn't charged. Not just guns, but vehicles and other personal property. The only exception should be for illegal things like counterfeit money.