No and it shouldn't be. Those are two separate issues. The police are operating from the parameters of the incident at hand. I do not agree with what the police did, confiscate his firearms, but that is guaranteed in a shooting incident where the circumstances are anything less than cut and dried. He served himself up on platter for the police. The shooter would probably have been better off if he didn't fire a “warning shot” and the burglar took a dirt nap, then there would only have been one version.
“He came at me and I was in fear for my life” or words to that effect.
“I want to speak to a lawyer” then shut up.
>>“Question: Is one’s right to keep and bear arms contingent upon their fear for their own life?”
>
>No and it shouldn’t be. Those are two separate issues.
No, they are not [separate issues]; for the right to bear arms is the right to USE arms.
>He served himself up on platter for the police.
This is something I find myself hating more and more; it is not the police (or judges) who are to be the executors of judgment, but the people themselves (via jury).