Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,147 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just read on another forum that a gentleman does not carry his HK any longer as his CCW pistol. He now carries a cheaper 2 inch S&W snub which he does not like as well. His reasoning is that he is afraid if he ever has to use it, the government will confiscate the pistol for X amount of time. Therefore he would prefer they confiscate a cheap Smith he likes less and which he can buy for a couple hundred dollars instead of his favorite HK which cost twice as much.

This is something I really never considered, I tend to carry what I like and shoot well, never considered price really. Not in selecting one firearm over another. Granted my Makarov was cheaper than others and bought originally because of that, but now it is carried because I truly like it and shoot it very well and it is used over pistols which I could buy, or own, which are much more expensive because of that reason, not price.

This got me to wondering, how many people use something like this as part of their daily carry selection criteria? If so, how strongly is it considered?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
No. My primary EDC is a Glock 26, for which I paid $500 when I bought it new some years ago. I think the chance of any individual being involved in a shooting is exceedingly low. It's hard to get into some one else's head but I think his logic is backward. It makes more sense to me to use the pistol you feel most comfortable with or works best for you in a given situation. If, and that is a big if, you are ever involved in a shooting and your piece is confiscated, that would be the time to consider whatever back-up gun you own or could afford with your new situation.

___

Edit: I also own a P220 which is too big for most of my situations. With a jacket or coat on, it's really not a big deal and don't consider its monetary value a reason not to carry it. Unless something has some great collector value, firearms are tools and should be used. It probably isn't wise to carry some valuable collector's piece everday, but I wouldn't leave my best electric drill in its carry case because I was afraid something might happen to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
if my life ever required the use of a gun to protect- my first concern would be surviving the crisis- I would worry about the gun later. That being said I would take the gun I feel most comfortable with, and one I can 100% rely on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
Would like to know where that guy is getting S&W snubbies for $200...coulda saved a bundle.

My EDC is a Sig 239 with a Sig 238 or S&W 38 BUG. I do have less expensive guns, i.e. Makarov and Tokarev, but the Makarov is a touch large for BUG duty (with a dubious cartridge) and the Tokarev is reserved for high risk areas.

Bottom line - if the handgun saves my life or the life of family, friend, or innocent victim, it has done its job and I am happy for that. After all what is a life worth? Worth every dollar and more.

If I could I would carry a 9mm or 45 ACP Korth, but my budget has its limits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,816 Posts
I don't know, but this is a great thread and the subject is very interesting. I have TWO bulgy maks, one of which is a safe queen GIFT and the other my beater-carry piece.....I LIKE both, but could not live with loosing one to confiscation after a shooting. So, I bought a second to carry.

I LOVE my 92fs. But, could not bear loosing it after a shooting. And, did not want to wear the nice, italian finnish so I bought a used centurion to carry.....

I would and do occassionally carry a tokarev. I intend to get TWO yugo's, as soon as I get my first work check. While searching for my first, elusive teaching job I am going to go back to work for my old security company job....make about 14 bucks an hour, and my wife has given me my first check to have 'fun' with as a college graduation gift....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,271 Posts
Just read on another forum that a gentleman does not carry his HK any longer as his CCW pistol. He now carries a cheaper 2 inch S&W snub which he does not like as well. His reasoning is that he is afraid if he ever has to use it, the government will confiscate the pistol for X amount of time. Therefore he would prefer they confiscate a cheap Smith he likes less and which he can buy for a couple hundred dollars instead of his favorite HK which cost twice as much.

This is something I really never considered, I tend to carry what I like and shoot well, never considered price really. Not in selecting one firearm over another. Granted my Makarov was cheaper than others and bought originally because of that, but now it is carried because I truly like it and shoot it very well and it is used over pistols which I could buy, or own, which are much more expensive because of that reason, not price.

This got me to wondering, how many people use something like this as part of their daily carry selection criteria? If so, how strongly is it considered?

Yes, and No.

The handguns I own are not expensive (I believe the most I paid was $250 for the EAA Witness Compact Polymer .45). I carry what I have (at this moment, I have not taken off my Llama IXA 1911A1 clone yet for the day, just got home).

The state of Kansas will confiscate ANY firearm I kill someone with, forever, and destroy it, because state law decrees that any firearm used in a homocide (the killing of a human being) shall be taken and destroyed, period, whether the end was justified or not. The gun is gone, and I am not "paid for it".

Not all states do this, mine does.

I SUSPECT that if I were to own some $1500 Les Bahr custom or some such wonderful piece of artillery, I might not "enable myself to use it" (by keeping it nearby and fully loaded), but, I have no such very nice pieces of artillery to loose. I would place my "lesser costly" hardware at risk, the same hardware I put at risk currently.

Some people think Price=Reliability, but, they are sadly mistaken.
Free country tho, they are welcome to THINK a $800 handgun is 2x as good as a $400 handgun, or 4x as good as a $200 handgun for all they like.

I'll put my $240 Llama up against ANYTHING costing 2-6x as much, for absolute reliability. She has proven herself for over 10 years, and over 10,000 rounds, of all sorts, from 155gr LSWC thru every JHP shape I could lay my hands on.
My $250 Witness has been ALMOST as reliable.
My $180 Star B Super, now that ammo length and bullet shape issues have been figured out, seems to want to try to match the others, we shal see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
The state of Kansas will confiscate ANY firearm I kill someone with, forever, and destroy it, because state law decrees that any firearm used in a homocide (the killing of a human being) shall be taken and destroyed, period, whether the end was justified or not. The gun is gone, and I am not "paid for it".
Does that apply to LEO's firearms as well? Or are we really talking homicide in these situations or some other classification under Kansas law. I have no idea, just asking a question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,816 Posts
as a kansas resident, I have to question this......We have become a far more firearms-friendly state then we used to be. Castle doctrine, what not. I know most states will usually confiscate a firearm used in self defense until the DA clears you of any wrong doing, but I do not see how the state can destroy your property if no crime has been committed......If the state confiscated and destroyed one of mine, I think I'd be inclined to file suit......even if it was for a 250 doller makarov.

further, kansas is very clear that you have the right to defend yourself, others, and YOUR property if you feel threatened. You can, and I quote, 'meet force with force'. You are under no obligations to surrender property or run.....so its hard to believe they take and destroy your firearm. Maybe those taken from drug dealers, murderers....not being rude, or trying to be. Can you show where you heard this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
I can understand his concern. However, why pay a premium price for a self-defense firearm and then not carry it because it would be too expensive if confiscated? If it was me, I'd carry it and not worry about it. If it's going to get confiscated after a self-defense shooting and not returned, then that means I'm facing a felony conviction for what the State has deemed an unlawful shooting -and I'm going to have a heck of a lot more to worry about than losing my gun.

Personally, high-dollar firearms have never impressed me. I appreciate them for their beauty and superb craftsmanship, and if I was a serious competition shooter or collector I might want one. However, I'm not willing to lay-out over $600 on a daily carry self-defense weapon. I've fired Glocks before, and in my opinion they're worth every penny of the $500 - $600 they command. I've fired Berettas when I was in the Military, but was indifferent to them. I currently own a Bersa Thunder 380 (bought new at $250), a CZ-82 (used for $250), and a Taurus 85CHUL (new for $350) that are all very reliable and very accurate, and I have complete confidence that they will serve my self-defense needs. I've fired a friend's Kimber and really liked it, but I don't think it would serve my self-defense purposes any better than the weapons I currently own - especailly for the $1K (roughly) he paid for the Kimber. But that's just me. Others need to carry what they feel confident with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
I have an even dozen handguns that I can choose from for concealed carry. That I have carried only 6 of them at one time or another doesn't mean I won't decide to carry one of the unchosen in the future. The price is not an issue ever for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,530 Posts
If it's confiscated, LE doesn't care about your property. As much as I love the 1911s I have- I'll carry my Glock. If it gets confiscated, I'm not gonna worry about it. If worse comes to worse, I'm out $350, not $900+.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
Real easy cure for this, is move the hell out of Kansas to somewhere that the state recognizes your personal property rights. If no crime was committed, they have no legal right to destroy your property. I would suspect the Kansas law, if it actually exists, is unconstitutional at best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,271 Posts
Does that apply to LEO's firearms as well? Or are we really talking homicide in these situations or some other classification under Kansas law. I have no idea, just asking a question.
No, they do not. "Line of duty" sorta bit.

I'll have to do a bit of digging BUT, it was gone over thoroughly in my CCH class 2 years ago, and I am quite certain that the apropriate statute is on the CD of "paperwork" all students were provided with.

The "paperwork" is a requirement for the class to provide, format is, of course, optional. Burned CD's were simply handier, and simpler than a whole bunch of paper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,271 Posts
When I get it dug up, my information is that teh law does not address any justification or not.

It states that any firearm that is used in a Homicide, shall be destroyed, period.

A Homicide is the killing of a human being, period.

Thus, shoot someone, and they die, deservedly or not, justified or not, the offending firearm must be destroyed, irespective of punitive punishment (or none) to the shooter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
When I get it dug up, my information is that teh law does not address any justification or not.

It states that any firearm that is used in a Homicide, shall be destroyed, period.

A Homicide is the killing of a human being, period.

Thus, shoot someone, and they die, deservedly or not, justified or not, the offending firearm must be destroyed, irespective of punitive punishment (or none) to the shooter.
If that is what the law actually says then it is flat out unconstitutional on several grounds.
Also how the hell can a firearm offend anything, it is aninanimatet object for gods sake and where the hell is due process.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,403 Posts
when I run into a first time gun buyer at a shop I allways tell them to buy two pistols. "why" they allways ask. "because when you use it to defend your self it will be taken as evidence, you will need a second one when his friend come to even the score".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,271 Posts
So far, from Wichita Kansas City Ordinance, ORDINANCE NO. 47-505

"AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.88.010 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, PERTAINING TO THE CRIME OF
UNLAWFUL USE OF WEAPONS AND REPEAL OF THE ORIGINAL
SECTION 5.88.010 "

This amendment was due to passage of our CCH law, because sections of 5.8.010 forbid teh concealed carry of a handgun places, but state law overrode it, expressly.


"(9) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section within the corporate limits
of the city shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by
a fine not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than
one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(10) In addition to the penalty for violation of any of the provisions of this section, it shall be
the duty of the municipal court judge:

(a) To order any weapon seized in connection with such violation which is not a firearm to
be forfeited to the city and the same shall be destroyed or caused to be destroyed by the chief of
police whenever the weapon is no longer needed for evidence;


(b) To order any weapon seized in connection with such violation when no longer needed for
evidentiary purposes, shall, in the discretion of the trial court, be:
(i) Destroyed: "


There is provision to turn over to policing agencies to be used for training, and provision for sale, but, we do not sell firearms taken from criminals, because the non-gun-owners have hissy-fits when they have tried it in the past.


"(ii) Forfeited to the Wichita Police Department for use within the police department, for sale
to a properly licensed federal firearms dealer or for trading to a properly licensed federal
firearms dealer by the police department for other new or used firearms or accessories for the
Police Department’s use; or
(iii) Forfeited to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation for law enforcement, testing, comparison
or destruction by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation forensic laboratory.
If weapons are sold as authorized above, the proceeds from any such sale shall be
credited to the asset seizure and forfeiture fund of the Wichita Police Department. All
transactions involving weapons disposed of under this subsection must have the prior approval of
the city manager. All sales of weapons are subject to review by the city council;

(c) Any stolen weapon confiscated in connection with any violation of this section other than
subdivision (a) of this subsection shall be returned to the person entitled to possession, if known,
when the same is no longer needed for evidence. All other weapons shall be disposed of as
provided in subsection (9)(a) and (b) of this section."


Still checking on STATE law.............................

Shoot someone in Wichita, you've comitted a mistemeanor (but, if you have passed 3 other laws, are immune from prosecution for the death, or from being sued by next of kin), but, you have comitted this misdemeanor.


I'm not saying I like it, it is what it is.

We are, as with other places that get shal-issue concealed carry, slowly adjusting the laws to make more sense from the old version that forbade everything, but, one step at a time.

Proclaiming it unconsitutional is like proclaiming a jail sentence for a crime unconstitutional because it "deprives you of your 'liberty'", which, the constituion declares you have a right to.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top