Losing it after you use it.....

[Charles L. Cotton]

If the shooting is justified, you should get the gun back, if it's even taken from you in the first place.

Chas.

[GeoJAP]

My carry guns are just tools to me. I carry good ones (Sig 239 and Ruger SP-101) but I can replace one in an instant if necessary. If I decide that I really, really like the Sig 239, I may buy a second as a backup, kind of like a redundant hardware system.

I have other safe queens that are very collectible items, as I have a C&R license and I have collected quite a few nice pieces in the last 10 years. But I don't carry them and they don't get shot much. They are not workhorses by any means.

[mr surveyor]

something I have wondered along the same lines as the original question is if I had used the weapon to take a life to preserve mine or another's, would I really want the gun back? That's a question I do not want to face.

[teleamp]

If the shooting is justified, you should get the gun back, if it's even taken from you in the first place.

Chas.

+1 Plus, movies and real life are two way different things. You should only pull your weapon in life or death situations.

MikeY

[Syntax360]

If I have to use it, I have no problem losing it. The pistol will have served it's function of defending my life and I'll buy another some other day if possible - guns are just material things, and as such, they are certainly replaceable. My life is not.

[TX Rancher]

+1 Plus, movies and real life are two way different things. You should only pull your weapon in life or death situations.

MikeY

I don’t think the legal system completely agrees with your comment since it does allow you to draw your weapon, even in non “life and death� situations...Now if you are making it as a personal judgement call, that's different.


Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor ’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

And if the situation degrades to the use of deadly force, the following applies:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1)if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2)if a reasonable person in the actor ’s situation
would not have retreated; and
(3)when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)to protect himself against the other ’s use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B)to prevent the other ’s imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Notice that in (B) above, there are several justifications that do not include imminent death.

To me it’s clear the law does not require it to be a “Life and Death� situation for the use of deadly force.

There are justifications for the use of deadly force for property too, which of course doesn’t include the threat of death to a human. You can find it in Sec 9.42 of the code.

I agree that producing your legally carried weapon should not be taken lightly, so don’t read this wrong, but the threat of death is not required…

Now the disclaimer…I’m not a lawyer, judge, or LEO…so in other words, I’m no where near an “expert�. But if I have it wrong, there are many folks here that do fit the above, and they will chime in.

Stick around teleamp, this forum is a great place to learn the ins and outs of CHL in Texas.