Assuming the defense of oneself is ruled justifiable, I don't see where there would be any difference. It's quite possible the question could come up, but if someone has been put in a position where they must respond with deadly force, that is going to be the premiere concern more than the gun itself, I should think. You can bet that the police will take control of the gun and keep if for a period as it would be evidence. So it might be prudent to have another gun just like it that you could continue to carry until you get the other one back.
You question raises another question I have thought about from time to time. I hope you don't think I am hyjacking your thread, but it is related to your topic somewhat.
If someone is involved in a self-defense shooting and it is pretty clear to the police that the victim acted properly, can that victim continue to carry a gun while things work through the legal system? This could easily be a period when the victim's life is in danger from friends and family of the BG so his being able to go armed could mean the difference between living or dying. Does anyone know anything about this? Would the police or county prosecutor require the victim to suspend his right to carry until he is found to have acted in accordance with the law... the assumption, of course is that he had not been arrested or formally charged.
