Tax stamp Class III for self defense?


PDA






Outlaws
August 11, 2006, 08:57 PM
If I get manage to get the tax stamp deal for a class 3 item like a supressor or even a full auto firearm, am I then allowed to apply that for use in home defense and/or my CCW?

If you enjoyed reading about "Tax stamp Class III for self defense?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
brickeyee
August 11, 2006, 09:04 PM
Only if you want to loose possession for a prolonged period after using it.
Even if you just shoot without killing or wounding anyone, expect the gun to be confiscated.
If you wound or kill someone it will be even longer.
An MG or SMG is probably overkill. If you have time to get it out, just use a carbine.
If you hit the target with almost any decent center fire rifle, game over in short order.

Outlaws
August 11, 2006, 09:10 PM
Well see shortbarrel shotgun won't cost what a SMG would cost. The SMG if I ever bought one would be for fun/SHTF/collectable.

I am more concerned about the suppressor. I realize they get taken away and I mgiht not get it back, but I was wondering if that is a violation of the whole deal with the ATF and class 3 weapons/accessories....like you agree to not use them for anything outside of sports.

I want the suppressor as a nice present for my ears if I ever have to shoot someone in my house. If they take it then fine....I jsut want to know I can buy another one or at the worst, I won't be violating a law and get 10 years in prison.

entropy
August 11, 2006, 09:11 PM
I doubt a Tax stamp would be very effective for self-defense. ;) As for using the weapon itself, I agree with brickeyee. Even if you didn't fire it, expect it to be confiscated anyways.

[Chief Wiggums voice] Yeah, we'll need to do some 'testing and evaluation' on this....[/Chief Wiggums voice] ;)

sacp81170a
August 11, 2006, 09:15 PM
Oh man, you've opened a *huge* can of worms. I'm going to predict the consensus here will be that, certainly, you *can*, in the same way that you *can* build a moat around your house and fill it with alligators. It may be physically possible, depending on what state you live in, but it probably ain't a good idea.

First off, for home defense, if you have an NFA weapon, what does that gain you over a good ol' 12 gauge, given the typical distances in home encounters? (Think 35 feet or less.) A suppressor is of no tactical significance unless you're being invaded by a gang of zombies and you need to cap them all before they find you and eat you.

As far as CCW, my state specifically prohibits use of NFA weapons for CCW, so check the laws. The only one I can think of that you might consider for this application would be the Glock 18 or something similar to a Czech Skorpion. Think about the implications, though. You haul out your trusty Glock 18 and send 17 rounds of 9mm flying at random with a couple of squeezes of the trigger. Where did they go? Most likely *not* all of them went into the bad guy, and remember, each one has a million dollar lawsuit attached.

If you *are* involved in a shoot, your $25,000+ NFA weapon will be seized as evidence. I'd much rather have 'em sieze my $600 carry piece, thank you very much.

I won't even get into the legal implications of using an NFA weapon for self defense and how you're going to explain to a jury of your peers that you're basically a peaceful, law abiding citizen who just happens to carry a full auto for "just in case".

Not no, but hell no. :uhoh:

Outlaws
August 11, 2006, 09:17 PM
A suppressor is of value in that guns are loud. And in an enclosed environment they would be nice IMO.

sacp81170a
August 11, 2006, 09:20 PM
Posted before I saw all the replies. I understand what you're saying about a suppressor in your house, but I'd rather spend $150 on a pair of electronic earmuffs. The advantage is that they actually amplify sounds, so you'll be able to hear better while cutting out the noise of gunfire. I keep a pair by the bedside just for that purpose. Plus, they don't require that $200 stamp and you can use 'em with *all* the firearms you own with no modification.

SOSG sounds like a good idea, but then you have that problem of accuracy. Still don't get you much over a standard HD shotgun, just harder to defend in court.

YMMV, but I'd find another way.

deadin
August 11, 2006, 09:25 PM
Hearing damage is usually caused by prolonged exposure to loud noise. Are you planning on shooting someone in your house on a daily or weekly basis? :what:

Dean

Outlaws
August 11, 2006, 09:28 PM
I already have a permant ring in my ears from too many rock shows. :evil:

But I assume not many of us here have ever fired a gun indoors, but sound is amplified a ton.

sacp81170a
August 11, 2006, 09:36 PM
I assume not many of us here have ever fired a gun indoors, but sound is amplified a ton.

In my case, you assume incorrectly. I have fired in shoot houses and real houses on a number of occasions, even had flash bangs go off in the next room without hearing protection. Sure, it's loud and it harms your hearing. That's one of the reasons I appreciate the electronic muffs so much. I have some hearing loss from training and operations in the military, but not so much that I have any trouble to speak of. I really wouldn't worry about shooting even a 12 gauge in my house. I'm used to it so it wouldn't shock me like it would an untrained individual, and since I don't expect to do it very often I'm not too concerned with any additional damage to my hearing.

I agree, though, preserve what hearing you can. $150 is cheaper than $200, and I never heard of anybody seizing electronic earmuffs as evidence. :D

ctdonath
August 11, 2006, 10:22 PM
There is nothing legally wrong with using Class III items for self-defense. The only iffy bits are greater scrutiy afterwards - and C3 items may help you have an afterwards to participate in the scrutiny thereof.

Any gun used for defense will probably be confiscated. C3 items may take a bit longer to return.
Any shoot will be scrutinized. C3 items may elicit greater scrutiny. A machinegun will elicit much more scrutiny, but scrutiny only goes so far - and since machineguns are so friggin' expensive, you're not likely to use one anyway.

I think, insofar as they're affordable, Class III items make for good defensive tools. A short barreled rifle with a silencer is about the ideal balance for size, power, and noise - considering use indoors in confined echoy spaces.

The benefit of C3 items over, say, a regular shotgun is kinda marginal. What's most important is having SOMETHING usable, then pursuing refinements.

MachIVshooter
August 11, 2006, 10:30 PM
I can't imagine a single judge in this country would condone the use of an SMG or SBS as a defensive weapon and you would likely be guilty the moment you walked into the courtroom. The prosecution's arguement will be simple and effective; you used a weapon designed for full on combat and therefore were looking for trouble. In this day and age, a defensive shooting is judged on myriad aspects, not simply whether or not you were in danger of great bodily injury. Believe me, the choice of weapon will come into play and anything more than a standard handgun will land you in hot water.

I personally try to keep my defensive handguns as non-nasty looking as possible for this very reason. If you carry an evil-looking piece and use it in a defensive shooting, expect it to be part of the case against you.

Inside your home, whole different story. I still wouldn't want to risk my five-figure NFA weapon being confiscated, though, even if only for a short time. Investigators and evidence handlers are notoriously careless with firearms.

We all know it is ridiculous that this should even be a factor in our choice of defensive firearms, but it is reality.

Zrex
August 11, 2006, 11:25 PM
A suppressor is of no tactical significance unless you're being invaded by a gang of zombies and you need to cap them all before they find you and eat you.

I dunno, I enjoy being able to hear before, durring and after shooting. If you have in earplugs, or you deafen yourself, how are you supposed to hear what the bad guy is up to?

Ever shot a suppressed firearm?

wdlsguy
August 11, 2006, 11:26 PM
I guess I'm going to go against the flow on this one. I alternate between an 11.5" AR-15 and an 18" Remington 870 for bedroom duty. The 870 is going to be 14" when the paperwork is complete.

I look at it this way: a good shoot is a good shoot, a bad shoot is a bad shoot. If someone has broken into my home and has gotten as far as our bedroom, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a good shoot. Using an NFA weapon doesn't turn a good shoot into a bad shoot.

Using a suppressor would help to save my wife's hearing as well as my own if I ever needed to fire the AR inside our bedroom.

armoredman
August 12, 2006, 12:09 AM
Well, I did know a guy who carried a MAC in an SMZ rig, with 2, 32 round mags offside. He ran a gunshop, and liked the extra firepower it gave him. Little buzzsaw was actually one of the few accurate ones.
BTW, AZ doesn't care what you carry with you CCW permit. Legal NFA is allowed...now, how do I get that German 7.5cm AT gun under this coat...

CleverNickname
August 12, 2006, 12:12 AM
I keep my 870 SBS in my safe, cruiser-ready. That's probably the long gun I'd go to first. If we're going to choose defensive weapons by the impression other people might get, I'd argue that to the average person an AR15 looks more evil than this:

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6152/p1010527wc4.th.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1010527wc4.jpg)

My machine guns would be the last guns I'd go to. They're strictly toys.

carpettbaggerr
August 12, 2006, 12:28 AM
You can use anything to defend yourself, but full-auto may result in larger legal bills.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749/pg_6

http://www.quarterbore.net/forums/showthread.php?t=389

No_Brakes23
August 12, 2006, 01:09 AM
Hearing damage is usually caused by prolonged exposure to loud noise. Are you planning on shooting someone in your house on a daily or weekly basis?

Uh, I put one 7 round magazine through my 1911 without hearing protection, and I couldn't hear right for a week or two later. Indoors would be even worse, I imagine.

zoom6zoom
August 12, 2006, 01:21 AM
You imagine correctly. I had the misfortune to be standing next to a moron who had a .45ACP AD in a living-room sized room. It was about a week before the ringing in my ears went away. Luckily the only other damage was a hole in the screen window and the slug buried itself in a fencepost just outside.

soutex50
August 12, 2006, 01:41 AM
I have a Bushmaster Carbon Ar-15 pistol for H/D along with my trusty Mossy 500 for heavy duty use....where I live, you don't worry about burglars and prowlers coming into your house, oh no, i'm talking bout fully decked pseudo-cops (home invasions) and kidnapper crews. they usually carry ak's

Being LE, we're usually targets for this Bozos who want to get back at us for applying the respective heat they deserve.

My department issued me a DPMS Kitty-Kat three round burst SBR (7.5" barrel) for SWAT that's also allowed for take home. You bet your sweet puttuty I'm going to use it if need be.

Hkmp5sd
August 12, 2006, 01:46 AM
I think a suppressors/SBS/SBR and/or full autos have a place in HD. That said, I'd never risk one of my many thousand dollar machineguns. Go with the assumption you will never see the weapon again and base your decision on that. A 12" 870 vs. an 18". A 11.5" AR vs. a 16" AR. Not a lot of difference other than the tax stamp.

I would love to see more people using suppressed weapons in HD situtations. Perhaps we could get rid of the the "for assassins only" belief and finally remove them from the NFA. Too bad OSHA doesn't consider them a protective device.

Kenneth Lew
August 12, 2006, 01:51 AM
If I get manage to get the tax stamp deal for a class 3 item like a supressor or even a full auto firearm, am I then allowed to apply that for use in home defense and/or my CCW?

From several different attorneys (who have actually represented self-defense shootings including one that had a client that used an IMI Uzi) in my area, using a NFA item for home defense and conceal carry is not smart, actually its stupid.

chrisbob
August 12, 2006, 01:55 AM
In a h/d situation that requires lethal force you may not have the time for earmuffs. You would obviously be more concerned for you and your families safety. This being said I would go w/ a 20 or 12 gauge semi auto. In a real case scenario you won't have time to aim, make decisions, or think about what happens later. Unless you have a small army after you or pissed off the wrong people and they call you to say they are coming you probably won't have any notice. Keep the full auto in the safe and the full 870 express 12 gauge by the night stand.:evil:

That is only my opion.

symr00
August 12, 2006, 03:20 AM
I shot my handgun in my home w/o hearing protection and I did not hear the shot nor did my wife. I believe it was the adrenaline that blocked it. I have spoken to quite a few people who have shot their firearms in self defense and they, too did not hear the shot/s. Personally I don't think you would run into any trouble using a suppressor in a H/D gun since it's only a noise suppressor. There would just be the matter of having it and the weapon it was mounted to being held up during the investigation.

strambo
August 12, 2006, 05:13 AM
can't imagine a single judge in this country would condone the use of an SMG or SBS as a defensive weapon and you would likely be guilty the moment you walked into the courtroom. The prosecution's arguement will be simple and effective; you used a weapon designed for full on combat and therefore were looking for trouble.

Be guilty of what? Self defense is an affirmative defense to homicide charges, period. Tools don't matter. How could you be looking for trouble sitting in your home? Worse case scenario is perhaps a negligence charge for any stray bullet damage and a manslaughter charge if you hit an innocent by mistake layin' down suppressive fire. I understand a sleazy prosecutor could try and spin stuff...but the law is the same whether you use an M60 or an M9bayonet.

I think a suppressor is a great idea, worse case you lose it for awhile, not as big a deal as losing a $12K subgun. I was thinking about suppressors for HD the other day. I have an almost 2yo daughter, it would be good to protect her hearing too, can't slap earmuffs on her.

saltydog
August 12, 2006, 09:58 AM
I have talked to the local police in my area about using my FA MAC10 for personal protection. The answer they gave me was "they didn't care!" Dead is dead. No such thing as "overkill." Kill is kill, period. They did however mention the fact that the news media will probably make a big deal out of it to make you look bad!. Thats all that was said. Personally I perfer a 12 gauge 3 inch magnum 00 buck up close. Hell I think its better that a sub in most cases.:uhoh:

brickeyee
August 12, 2006, 10:13 AM
"I have talked to the local police in my area about using my FA MAC10 for personal protection. The answer they gave me was "they didn't care!" Dead is dead. No such thing as "overkill." Kill is kill, period."

They are not the ones who make the decisions about prosecuting. A District Attorney makes them. In many cases they are elected.
What are your local politics like?
Finding out in front of a grand jury (if they bother to call you before indicting) can cause a lot of hurt.

Kenneth Lew
August 12, 2006, 01:23 PM
Worse case scenario is perhaps a negligence charge for any stray bullet damage and a manslaughter charge if you hit an innocent by mistake layin' down suppressive fire.

As I stated, using a NFA firearm is not very smart. Good scenario for the Brady Bunch to get rid of NFAs and CHLs.

Bergerboy
August 12, 2006, 05:54 PM
You can use anything to defend yourself, but full-auto may result in larger legal bills.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...112685749/pg_6


That is an amazing story! Right up there w/ the story of the gunshop owner that sprayed the guys down w/ his S&W Model 76 :D

benEzra
August 12, 2006, 07:55 PM
Disclaimer: I don't own any Title 2 firearms/accessories, so take this with a grain of salt.

Full auto vs. semiauto - probably not the full-auto, even if I could afford one (a $15,000 M16 or AK would be worth about 3 times as much as both our vehicles put together). Increased chance of frivolous prosecution b/c of media attention; you go through your ammunition faster (how many people who are not LEO's/military have shot their full-auto in the grip of a fight-or-flight response before?); increased risk of stray shots (I live in a suburb); and you stand a good chance of never seeing the gun again. If I owned a Title 2 auto, I think I'd view it as more of an investment/expensive toy than a home defense gun, particularly since I couldn't afford the ammunition bill to practice with it on a regular basis...

SBR vs. 16" carbine - the SBR makes more sense than the machinegun, IMHO, but more for pistol-caliber carbines than rifle-caliber carbines. A 16" .223 carbine is excruciatingly loud already; in my house, a 12" barrel wouldn't gain me much in maneuverability over a 16" barrel, but it will be considerably louder, have more muzzle blast, and offer less ballistically. I'd rather have the 16". For a 9mm carbine, a shorter barrel might make more sense, but in a carbine-length firearm I prefer .223 over pistol calibers.

Suppressed SBR vs. unsuppressed carbine of the same overall length - tough call. I can see the advantage of the suppressed SBR from a hearing standpoint, but I'm not sure if it would be worth the extra cost and trouble, and you do lose a bit ballistically in .223. Again, this may make more sense for pistol-caliber carbines, since they will gain more from the suppressor anyway.

carpettbaggerr
August 12, 2006, 08:04 PM
Good scenario for the Brady Bunch to get rid of NFAs and CHLs.:rolleyes:

That is an amazing story! Right up there w/ the story of the gunshop owner that sprayed the guys down w/ his S&W Model 76 Don't miss the $90,000 in legal bills. Which almost certainly wouldn't have occurred with any other firearm........

saltydog
August 12, 2006, 08:18 PM
They are not the ones who make the decisions about prosecuting. A District Attorney makes them. In many cases they are elected.
What are your local politics like?

Local politic's is against the bad guys. :eek:

Your right about the DA being the one that makes the final decision's but let me put it this way. Here in Okla. if someone broke into your house and threatend your wife, kids, or your life, it would be hard pressed to get any conviction against the home owner no matter what kind of weapon he/she used in self defense. We do have a "MAKE MY DAY" law here. If your in somebodys house and you ain't supposed to be there then, your in one hell of a bad situation to begin with! :uhoh:

But, like I said, I have a FA but I much prefer the 12 gauge shotgun with 00 Buck for self defense.:D

Outlaws
August 12, 2006, 08:24 PM
Just to clear things up for everyone, when I say suppressed I mean a suppressed pistol.

SBR (I assume that is a short barreled rifle?) is not something that interests me at the moment. If I had $20k to spend it would be on a Thompson....and that wouldn't get used for home defense. .....maybe when the world ends I would pull it out....but until the ATF is gone there is no way I would risk loosing that firearm.

My main concern was if using a class 3 item is against the law if you are legal to own one.

pcf
August 12, 2006, 08:50 PM
Worse case scenario is perhaps a negligence charge for any stray bullet damage and a manslaughter charge if you hit an innocent by mistake layin' down suppressive fire.

As I stated, using a NFA firearm is not very smart. Good scenario for the Brady Bunch to get rid of NFAs and CHLs.

And out of left field......If you lay down suppressive in any home defense scenario, with any type of firearm and there's a DA around to charge you, you're going to get at least one book thrown at you.

CleverNickname
August 12, 2006, 09:18 PM
The problem with a suppressed pistol is that they're hard to holster. I'd rather have a holstered unsuppressed pistol that I can put into action immediately than a suppressed pistol that I have to go run to my safe to get.

sacp81170a
August 12, 2006, 09:30 PM
My main concern was if using a class 3 item is against the law if you are legal to own one.

I think I already said this, but "check the laws in your state" is the best answer I can give you. You may not be able to CCW with a suppressor, but I can't see any legal limitations on HD with one, at least at the FedGov level if your paperwork is all in order.

IANAL, and I *didn't* sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :D

benEzra
August 12, 2006, 10:08 PM
Just to clear things up for everyone, when I say suppressed I mean a suppressed pistol.

SBR (I assume that is a short barreled rifle?) is not something that interests me at the moment. If I had $20k to spend it would be on a Thompson....and that wouldn't get used for home defense. .....maybe when the world ends I would pull it out....but until the ATF is gone there is no way I would risk loosing that firearm.

My main concern was if using a class 3 item is against the law if you are legal to own one.
There is definitely no Federal law that would preclude using a Title 2/Class III item, such as a suppressed pistol or an SBR, for self-defense. If such weapons are legal to possess in a particular state, it would be unlikely that there would be any prohibitions against using them in justified defense of your own home, but you'd want to search your state firearm statutes just to make sure.

The downside of a suppressed pistol for HD would be that it is nearly as long in front of the grip as a pistol-caliber carbine, but without the carbine's advantages that relate to the shoulder stock and the longer sight radius. I'd rather have a suppressed short-barreled carbine, personally.

Glock_10mm
August 12, 2006, 10:22 PM
Check your state laws...for instance, FL doesnt allow the carry of a machinegun as ccw, but I think thats all they pretty much dont allow if you have all the right paperwork/stamps. So check out where you live.

ny32182
August 12, 2006, 10:55 PM
When I finally finish a suppressed SBR (might be quite a while), I intend to use it for HD. Primary reason being, to save my hearing. I am convinced that different people's ears react to loud noises in different ways. Unfotunately, I've learned the hard way that I'm in the camp that doesn't hear right for hours after being exposed to even one round fired without hearing protection/suppressor. I can't even imagine what it would do to me indoors in an enclosed room. In the aftermath of an HD shooting, I would want to have as many of my senses as possible functioning correctly.

My residence has a lot of tight corners and narrow hallways, so there is also a premium on maneuverablility for me. Therefore, I feel the optimal solution for me is both SBR'd, and suppressed. Even if they confiscate the entire weapon, they've still only taken less than $2500 from me, and I consider good hearing for the rest of my life to be worth that, and much more.

Political winds around here don't tend to favor the bad guys, so I wouldn't be worried about that either. I would hesitate to use a full auto though, even if I did own one... you are putting a *far* more expensive weapon at risk of being confiscated, for what I consider to be little or no practical gain in terms of effectiveness.

saltydog
August 13, 2006, 09:04 AM
you are putting a *far* more expensive weapon at risk of being confiscated, for what I consider to be little or no practical gain in terms of effectiveness

One must remember, unless YOU are charged with a crime, nobody can confiscate anything. Title II weapons are still "private property" just as much as someone's car or house or bank account or.... .:)

strambo
August 13, 2006, 09:15 AM
Worse case scenario is perhaps a negligence charge for any stray bullet damage and a manslaughter charge if you hit an innocent by mistake layin' down suppressive fire.

As I stated, using a NFA firearm is not very smart. Good scenario for the Brady Bunch to get rid of NFAs and CHLs.


And out of left field......If you lay down suppressive in any home defense scenario, with any type of firearm and there's a DA around to charge you, you're going to get at least one book thrown at you.


People are implying that if you use an NFA weapon to defend yourself you will/could get prosecuted for killin' the perp because of the weapon. Not true (at least not legally correct) if killing the perp is justifyable it doesn't matter what weapon you use. My point is any charges would result from other things that happened to indicate negligence, etc... If you put a 3 round burst into a home invaders' chest from an lawfully owned MP5SD, there is no legally correct way to prosecute you due to the weapon choice.

entropy
August 13, 2006, 09:38 AM
Some states/jurisdictions require an arrest even for an obviously justifiable homocide. Once in their hands, getting it back will be a long, laborious, and expensive process. Course, if you can afford one in the first place....;)

ctdonath
August 13, 2006, 03:27 PM
I can't imagine a single judge in this country would condone the use of an SMG or SBS as a defensive weapon and you would likely be guilty the moment you walked into the courtroom.Any judge that thinks that shouldn't be on the bench. If the act of self-defense is justified, the tool used is of little legal importance. That you fired nine 9mm projectiles with one pull of the trigger, vs. fired nine 9mm projectiles with one pull of the trigger, is a non-difference (that's 00 buckshot from a standard shotgun vs. a long burst from a SMG). That you fired shot from an 18.5" barrel vs. a 14.5" barrel also makes no practical legal difference.

The only reason you'll get scrutinized more is that NFA weapons have been demonized, and a smart judge & prosecutor will only press the case to make sure the tools involved were legal. Any that do deem you "guilty the moment you walked into the courtroom" are grossly negligent in their sworn duties.

The prosecution's arguement will be simple and effective; you used a weapon designed for full on combat and therefore were looking for trouble.Defense's argument is also simple: if I need to exercise deadly force on someone who broke into my home and behaved in a manner threatening my life to a degree that I actually needed to risk killing him, I wanted to make sure I would be the one standing in the courtroom defending my actions, not assuming room temperature - yes indeed it was full on combat. As for "looking for trouble", it was my home and my life - I was NOT unlawfully in someone else's home violating a host of laws and threatening lives.

A suppressor is of no tactical significanceGo fire a .223 round indoors sans earplugs, and get back to us on the "tactical significance".

a good shoot is a good shoot, a bad shoot is a bad shoot.Bingo. The tool only helps either be more of what it is.

My machine guns would be the last guns I'd go to. They're strictly toys.Which is why the military & police use them, right?

full-auto may result in larger legal bills.This is true. I'd rather be paying larger legal bills than increasing my odds of being dead.

Hearing damage is usually caused by prolonged exposure to loud noise. Are you planning on shooting someone in your house on a daily or weekly basis?As above: fire a single .223 round indoors sans earplugs, then get back to us.

I was too close to the wrong end of a .308 without earplugs once. A single shot messed up my left ear's high frequency perception permanently. It only takes once to cause permanent damage.

in my area, using a NFA item for home defense and conceal carry is not smart, actually its stupid.Depends on the jurisdiction. Some forbid it, some frown on it, some are happy you won the fight.

I shot my handgun in my home w/o hearing protection and I did not hear the shot nor did my wife.Psychological processing of the auditory information is different from the physical impact on delicate hearing components (and the latter have a mysterious ability to sometimes put up with extereme noise without damage, but that's not assured).

when I say suppressed I mean a suppressed pistol.Then say so. My HD gun will soon be a suppressed rifle.

A suppressed pistol on the street will get greater scrutiny, as it falls into a category that, under current social norms, practically cannot be used that way. Nobody is going to carry an M16 around daily for SD, nor are they likely to carry a suppressed pistol - both are simply too long for convenience.

There is no law (your jurisdictional mileage may vary) prohibiting NFA use for self defense. The only problem is it may create circumstantial issues that will take time & money to deal with in court. So long as it's a good shoot you should be fine - evil prosecutors aside.

Regardless of tool used: if you shoot someone, expect arrest and prosecution. NFA items will increase those odds, so it better be a good shoot.

sacp81170a
August 13, 2006, 04:14 PM
Quote:
A suppressor is of no tactical significance

Go fire a .223 round indoors sans earplugs, and get back to us on the "tactical significance".

I have, repeatedly, in live-fire room entry training, with flash bangs and others firing at the same time. You get used to it. Again, at home defense distances, you're not going to conceal your presence from BG's, thus, "no tactical significance". I'm not saying that you shouldn't protect your hearing if at all possible, but if you're using a suppressor to preserve your hearing, it's not for a tactical reason, it's for a medical reason. It's not a bad thing, but neither is it a "tactical" thing.

Phenom
August 13, 2006, 04:21 PM
It's a liability thing. If you use any firearm for self defense you are responsible for where the slugs go. A fiream like a Mac-11/9 will empty a full magazine within two seconds. Under stress you probably won't realize how long you held the trigger down. Before you know it, you just turned your wall into swiss cheese and endangered other victim(s) in your home. Add to the fact you don't know how many of these slugs made it outside.

I might get flamed for this. There's no practical use for full-auto in civilian hands. The fun factor is the only real use of full-auto by civilians. I don't have a problem if a civilian owns a full-auto firearm. If you're not well trained with it, then don't use it.

Outlaws
August 13, 2006, 06:11 PM
I might get flamed for this. There's no practical use for full-auto in civilian hands. The fun factor is the only real use of full-auto by civilians. I don't have a problem if a civilian owns a full-auto firearm. If you're not well trained with it, then don't use it.

I won't flame you, but I will explain why I think you are both right and wrong.

Right becuase 99.99999999% of shooting would never require you to lay supressive fire, and full auto requires a level of high level of mental control while under fire.

Wrong because of this....

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United
States."
-Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the
federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the
United States (P. Ford, 1888)

That has been removed since select fire was banned from the general public in '34.

I can't say that was a 'bad' move back then since they had no forensic evidence and you could just shoot someone and walk away without ever being caught, and the mobsters would just waltz in and light a place up.... But I think things have a changed a little.

Phenom
August 13, 2006, 06:25 PM
I said that I didn't have a problem with civilians owning full-auto;)

jeepmor
August 13, 2006, 06:44 PM
However, more responsibility comes with more bullets flying around. Auto gun fine, but have semi-auto mode on it, start defense routine there, panic switch is right there should repeated finger pulls not be doing the trick.

I'm not that ambitious, or rich, regular HD guns for me. My hearing will recover better than a bullet wound.

jeepmor

justashooter
August 14, 2006, 06:23 AM
pennsylvania specifically prohibits concealed carry of class 3 items under section 6100.

pcf
August 14, 2006, 08:38 AM
I have, repeatedly, in live-fire room entry training, with flash bangs and others firing at the same time. You get used to it. Again, at home defense distances, you're not going to conceal your presence from BG's, thus, "no tactical significance". I'm not saying that you shouldn't protect your hearing if at all possible, but if you're using a suppressor to preserve your hearing, it's not for a tactical reason, it's for a medical reason. It's not a bad thing, but neither is it a "tactical" thing.

How many of have flashbangs to use for home defense? That temporary hearing loss that we shouldn't worry about may be the difference hearing a police officer(s) announce his presence 2 minutes after the shooting, and a police officer(s) looking for a shooter and a home owner seeing another badguy with a gun. Surviving contact with responding officers should be high on everyone's list of tactical and medical concerns.

Father Knows Best
August 14, 2006, 09:01 AM
I shot my handgun in my home w/o hearing protection and I did not hear the shot nor did my wife. I believe it was the adrenaline that blocked it. I have spoken to quite a few people who have shot their firearms in self defense and they, too did not hear the shot/s.

Good point. There are plenty of accounts of people who fired their guns in "adrenaline dump" situations, and who could not recall afterwards having heard the shot. Your body does strange things when the "fight or flight" reaction kicks in.

A more familiar example is hunting. Any deer hunters here? If you've ever shot a deer, think back to that experience -- particularly the first few times. Most people shooting their first deer, and some people for almost every shooting, report afterwards that they did not actually hear the shot, and did not feel the recoil of the gun.

Finally, I'll note that in my experience, few handguns are what I would call truly "loud." I guess it all depends on your frame of reference. I fire .45ACP and .44 Special handguns all the time, and I'm around others who are firing them. While I use hearing protection almost all the time, I have heard them go off in close proximity without my "ears on." I don't recommend it as a general practice, but I also don't think it is that big of a deal. Now my 44 magnums, on the other hand, are LOUD. Just about any carbine-length rifle or home defense shotgun is also MUCH louder than a pistol in common calibers like 9mm, .40S&W or .45ACP. I can see a compelling argument for a suppressor on a 16" AR-15, for example, both for sound and flash suppression, but I don't see any particular need for one on a 1911 or other typical handgun.

jackal1209
August 14, 2006, 10:48 AM
After being in the law enforcement profession for fifteen years, and now working in the court system, I have seen all aspects of this question played out.
Most importantly, consider this. If you are involved in a shooting with one of these weapons, you will be faced with explaining your "Rambo actions" in a civil
suit which will most assurably follow, even though it was ruled a good shoot.
Is that something you want to explain to a civil jury? NOT ME!

Correia
August 14, 2006, 12:27 PM
There is too much broad generalizing in this thread to get any sort of coherant answer.

There is a massive difference between carrying on your person (CCW) and using a gun at home.

If the bad guy comes to me, in my home, and I am legally justified in shooting him according to my state's laws, they are going to be hard pressed to show me as a Rambo. If you live in one of those states that suck that bad, then I have pity for you, but don't assume that all of us live in criminal paradise.

To the guy who says he has touched off plenty of flashbangs and 5.56 indoors with no problem, and that there is not tactical advantage, whatever. I've done that also. Sometimes you don't hear the shot. Othertimes it smashes into your ear like a freaking sledgehammer, jiggles the jelly in your eyeballs, and all you can hear is a high pitched hum for the next two days. Every situation is different.

Where does this assumption come from (on a gun board non-the-less) that if you have a full auto capable weapon you are going to go to automatic suppresive fire mode and spray thousands of rounds indiscriminately and kill the entire neighborhood? This sounds like the antis bleating about "assault weapons".

And yes, some of us here do know how to use full auto just fine, thanks.

And it is SBR or SBS, no SOSG. And if you have used an SBR or SBS in tight quarters, then you know how handy they are in comparison to a 16" or 18" gun.

My SBR has a 10.5 barrel, and with a suppresor, overall length is near that of a standard 16" gun. However it is much nicer to shoot indoors. Hearing damage is permenant and cumulative. It never gets better. Everytime you damage your hearing, it is that much worse. It is nothing more than machismo to brag about how you shot unsuppresed indoors many times and it doesn't bug you. Yes, in most instances you keep going just fine, but your hearing is now damaged.

Money wise, I'm not in to a suppressed SBR much more than many people are into a fancy carry gun. There is a huge price difference between an SBR and a pre-86 machine gun.

ctdonath
August 14, 2006, 09:25 PM
Bump that. Paraphrasing to counter the sillyness I'm hearing here.

Given the range of jurisdictions and personal scenarios involved, sweeping statements often don't work. Accurately dumping a quarter-mag into a home invader in rural Georgia can get you a pat on the back; not leaping out a second-story window when faced with a home invader can get you prosecuted in NY (ok, that's overstating it a bit...but not much...). If your jurisdiction objects, so be it - just don't criticize what works fine elsewhere.

If the perp's estate sues me for a good shoot, I'll sue right back 10x for him voluntarily placing me in a "kill or be killed" situation - right down to cleaning the mess, psychological damage (what's the phrase I'm looking for...), $1.50 ammo costs, and a few million in punative damages.

If you've fired numerous 5.56 rounds indoors, plus flashbangs, without hearing protection you've got permanent hearing damage - period. I'm not gonna quibble about whether going progressively deaf - short or long term - is a tactical issue or not.

The anti-NFA comments I'm reading amount to Brady Bunch rhetoric. Yes I've been trained on full-auto (Uzi and MP5), and have passed the DEA qualifications for it. Such guns are legal in many states, and many jurisdictions don't really care what you use so long as everything is legal. Any "freak out and kill lots of bystanders" BS is little different than the same nonsense marketed about semi-autos.

I've got a SOSG type doing HD duty right now. Yes it's entirely legal. No it's not optimal, hence a pending switch to SBR. Indoors, shorter is better (so long as length delivers adequate velocity) especially when a silencer is added.

MGs aside, cost of NFA for HD is reasonable for those of average means. Paperwork is mildly obnoxious but doable (where it is doable at all). Taxes are a pain, but thanks to inflation cost about the same as a few dinners out.

I have yet to see any justification here that "NFA isn't smart for HD" that doesn't amount to Brady Bunch rhetoric. Comments about suppressive fire betray ignorance.

Phenom
August 14, 2006, 09:58 PM
The only thing I said was if you're not trained with it, then don't use it. If you had the proper training and enough training to use it on instinct then go ahead. Put it this way, if you have a CCW permit would you not train regularly with what you're carrying?

Ron James
August 14, 2006, 09:59 PM
These are the facts, use of a NFA firearm in self defence will result in a charge. Like or not it will happen. In the aftermath, during the civil trial,
you will not be able to prove you did not use excessive force when you murdered a poor soul , who by the way only had a firearm in his hand because he saw you with a machine gun. Even if you are cleared in a criminal court, you will lose every thing you worked all your life for, in a civil trial.

MudPuppy
August 14, 2006, 10:19 PM
Oh yeah, "am I allowed to use a legal FA in self defense?"

I think the answer is yes, but I'm not sure.

Who is saying that "it is illegal to use an FA in self defense"?

PvtPyle
August 14, 2006, 10:53 PM
My take on it. I have recommended to people that they do not use NFA weapons for self defense, UNLESS you can verbalize in court why you shot him, and why you chose the NFA item.

Suppressors are a very good item for self defense. If you have put any real research into the subject (and can show it in court), you can show that you used the suppressor to reduce the risk of long term hearing loss and so that you could maintain better situational awareness for bad guys and good guys.

As to the SBS or SBR, the loss of velocity can be a benefit when taking into consideration the people in houses around you. Over penetration is bad, another reason why using a rifle firing 55gr rounds it better than a handgun.

As for the judge or jury hanging you out to dry, they will probably try. Around here though, it is less than likely. I for one am not the least bit worried about it.

In my situation I fully plan on using either a suppressed pistol, short barreled M4 with a can, or an MP-5. I am also fully prepaired to illustrate to the court that I am not only well trained in their use in the same manner that LEO's and Military are trained to use them, but also why they were required for this situation. Also taking into consideration that the Assistant Prosecuting Att. for the state is a long tab and his boss has had him around for many years, I dont think it will be much of an effort to show them what the reasoning was.

If you want to use one, just be prepaired to make the best case you can for your use, and be prepaired for them to make you look as bad as they can.

For those who don't see a reason to use one......whatever. To each his own and if it works for you cool. But you can bet that if you break into my house, you had better bring a bunch of friends and a midnight snack. And if you bring a bunch of friends, I will bring a belt fed. And yes, I am quite serious. I will not be outgunned, I will not be at a disadvantage to a criminal.

ctdonath
August 14, 2006, 11:14 PM
[In my home,] I will not be outgunned, I will not be at a disadvantage to a criminal.Bingo. 'nuff said.

jackal1209
August 15, 2006, 09:48 AM
To each his own, and if you choose to unleash an M-60 on some scumbag in your home, thats your choice, and thank God this is America, and you have that choice. But.... as my old grand daddy told me, you gotta pick your battles, and
thats not one I would choose. I can terminate a scumbag as quick with my XD-45 or my 12ga. pump, and not have to explain to a bleeding heart civil jury why I ambushed, and unloaded a 30 rounder from an MP-5 etc. into him.
Not saying he doesn't deserve it, it just makes common sense to protect yourself on that end too.

Correia
August 15, 2006, 09:59 AM
Jackal, PvtPyle is a fricking surgeon with an MP5.

This whole unload a magazine into the perp is nothing more than regurgitated Brady bunch nonsense that they used during the AWB.

jackal1209
August 15, 2006, 10:02 AM
I'm proud of him.

Phenom
August 15, 2006, 10:09 AM
I have no problem with him using a MP5 then. My only concern is someone using the said MP5 when they're not experianced with it.

Correia
August 15, 2006, 10:34 AM
Same as the Brady argument about people having shotguns, rifles, assault weapons, or handguns.

Everything/everyone requires training.

Phenom
August 15, 2006, 11:14 AM
Damn straight training is required for everything. Would you tell someone who never seen a Indy500 to race one without training. I don't have a problem with anyone having firearms as long as they're not a raging lunatic. Only a fool would do something as reckless as use a firearm for self-defense without training. Could you live with yourself knowing you shot an innocent person? I know I couldn't :mad:

ctdonath
August 15, 2006, 11:40 AM
if you choose to unleash an M-60 on some scumbag in your home... unloaded a 30 rounder from an MP-5 etc. into him.By what sane line of reasoning do you offer up those scenarios? Do you REALLY think anyone supporting NFA HD/SD in this discussion means such things? It's no different that Brady Bunch "blood in the streets" rhetoric about dumping a "30 rounder from an" AR-15 into someone for no good reason.

OF COURSE doing something stupid can get you in trouble and have awful consequences. Stop implying that we would do stupid things in light of sane & reasonable discussions!!!

444
August 15, 2006, 11:54 AM
I could see myself using an NFA weapon for personal defense. If that happens to be the first thing I laid hands on. I know that my 14" 870 is standing right at the front of my safe because it is too short to fit in the safe racks. So, there is a good chance that is what I would use.
I also might use a short AR because they are too short to fit in the racks and are lying on top of the pistols on the safe shelves so they are easy to grab.
Something that is kind of interesting: many of the people on this thread think about NFA weapons as some kind of rare and highly specialized thing that is sitting in a glass case. To others......I would have to purposely change out the uppers on my ARs to NOT have an NFA weapon. I would have to dig through my safe to find a shotgun that ISN'T an NFA weapon. And why would I do that ?
My SMG and suppressed weapons would probably be among the last things that I would grab right before the bolt action .22s. I just don't see the point. A little off topic, but in these SHTF senarios, I probably would leave my SMG in the safe and walk away from it. I consider it nothing but a toy.

I don't know, but I don't think it would be a big deal around here. I think if you were confronted by a home invader and were in legitimate fear for your life, and you shot the guy with a 14" barreled shotgun, I don't think it would make any difference at all. I am not even completely sure that anyone would realize it was something unusual.

jackal1209
August 15, 2006, 11:57 AM
You have your point of view, and I have mine. I'm sorry you took, (or take) everything so literally. I was only making a point.

Ever hear the old saying, "Beating a dead horse"? I think we are there...

Correia
August 15, 2006, 11:57 AM
Strangely, I have yet to see any of the NFA advocates on here use the words "Terminate the scumbag" either. :)

444
August 15, 2006, 12:15 PM
It is very common to make ones' point by taking the most extreme possible position (no matter how ridiculous) and try to imply that is what the other guy is saying.
It is much more dramatic that way.

PvtPyle
August 15, 2006, 12:27 PM
To each his own, and if you choose to unleash an M-60 on some scumbag in your home, thats your choice, and thank God this is America, and you have that choice

Yes, thankfully it is.

But.... as my old grand daddy told me, you gotta pick your battles, and thats not one I would choose

I guess it is my alpha type personallity, but I that is a battle I would choose to fight. Why should I be affraid to stand up for my rights?

I can terminate a scumbag as quick with my XD-45 or my 12ga. pump, and not have to explain to a bleeding heart civil jury why I ambushed, and unloaded a 30 rounder from an MP-5 etc. into him.

If they make me out to have ambushed an intruder in my home, my lawyers question back to them would be "what was the deceased doing in my clients home?". But your comment about dumping a 30rd mag into him sounds just like the idiots at the Brady center or the moron mom marchers. You really (and very clearly) have no idea how to handle a weapon like this or deploy it in a real world situation. You have obviously seen wayyyy to much TV and think they way they do it in the movies is the way it works in the real world.

If you dont feel comfortable using an NFA piece of equipment on a badguy while trying to defend your life or your loved ones, fine. The fact that you are willing to do it at all is good enough for me. But do not tell me how to take care of myself and mine. I have received the training, the best your tax dollars can buy, and fully intend on using it to my advantage over a badguy who is trying to hurt myself or a loved one. End of story.

Phenom
August 15, 2006, 01:34 PM
I personally think SBRs are very handy items. They're more compact then fullsize rifles and shotguns making them easier to use in homes. What I'm saying is we don't need some Rambo wannabe using a full-auto weapon for defense purposes. The Brady Bunch would have a field day with a Rambo wannabe turning a perp into swiss cheese.

444
August 15, 2006, 01:39 PM
Again with the dramatics.


What if some law abiding home owner encountered a home invader making his way to the home owner's child's bedroom and the home owner used his legallly owned submachine gun with a suppressor and bayonet to put a three round burst into the center of mass of the home invader ?


The home owner used a weapon with which he was familiar and skilled. He used deadly force to counter what he viewed as a threat of deadly force in his own home, but used a measured amount of force carefully and precisely applied.
Why is that so wrong ?
Why do you consider that so much more agressive than firing three quick shots COM from a blackpowder revolver ? Why is this so much more aggressive than hitting the guy 9 times AT ONCE with a load of double ought buck from a shotgun ?
Why do you want to play into the hands of the liberal ? By playing this game you are in effect admitting that there is something inherently evil about the machine gun. The liberal will say, you were using a weapon designed for only one purpose: to kill other people. And you reply, yes, and that is exactly what I used it for.
Don't hide from these clowns. Don't let these clowns dictate your actions and how you live your life. Confront them head on and put them on the defensive. If you believe you are right, then don't accept their philosophy and change your behavior to suit them.

Correia
August 15, 2006, 01:40 PM
The Brady Bunch would have a field day if anybody used a previously banned AWB gun to turn somebody into swiss cheese also. Or a shotgun. Or a rifle. Or a handgun. Or a pointy stick. The Bradyites are ready to swim in blood at the drop of a hat. It doesn't matter where the blood comes from.

Face it, if you live your life in fear of what the Brady Bunch might say, then you will lead a very dull and unfullfilling life. :)

Phenom
August 15, 2006, 02:05 PM
Try the media;) Firearms aren't looked at the same way today as they were in the 1920s. I wish the laws were the same as they were in the 1920s.

ctdonath
August 15, 2006, 02:12 PM
You have your point of view, and I have mine.Mine is based on personal training with SMGs. Correia's is based on personal training with SMGs. PvtPyle's is based on LOTS of professional training with SMGs. What's your's based on?

Simply having a point of view doesn't make it viable or valid.
I'm sorry you took, (or take) everything so literally.You said what you said, with little reason to take it otherwise. We've all met people who literally hold the view you espoused, and we have little reason (you ARE new here) to interpret what you said to mean something else which you did not say (and still haven't said).
I was only making a point.Well, since you now indicate that you don't mean what you said, kindly make your point by saying what you do mean.

ctdonath
August 15, 2006, 02:15 PM
Firearms aren't looked at the same way today as they were in the 1920s....partly (and significantly) because the ignorant & fearful have become the dominating voice in the public debate, with the knowledgeable & experienced being drowned out & persuaded to shut up. Time we start speaking up again, making sure that ignorance does not make policy.

444
August 15, 2006, 02:25 PM
"Firearms aren't looked at the same way today as they were in the 1920s"

The WHOLE reason for this is because we are always on the defensive. We allow our enemies to dictate the rules of the game. We hide back in our little cubby hole and let the lefties say what they want to say. We base our arguments on defending ourselves against the left instead of the other way around.
This is a VERY important concept that has been lost on the vast majority of gun owners in this country. What we have been doing to preserve our rights over the last 50 years is a failure. Our tactics and stradegy are losers. We HAVE to change. We can't continue on this same path year after year when it is obvious that what we are doing is NOT working.

Want an example of what can be done when you are a hated, laughed at, tiny minority ? Want to see what is possible in pushing your own agenda against all odds ? Want to see what happens when you go on the OFFENSIVE instead of hiding in the closet ?
You need look no farther than what the gays have done.
They went from being tarred and feathered to being an almost mandatory part of every mainstream TV series and popular movie. They are "in" with the PC crowd. Gay bashing is now done behind closed doors instead of the other way around.
How did this happen ?
They gays came out of the closet and changed their whole stadegy. They quit hiding and went on the offensive. They quit letting their enemies dictate the rules of the game.
Gun owners are too lazy to do the same. They want to apologize for what they believe. They don't want to make any waves. They don't want to draw attention to themselves. They don't want the PC crowd to say bad things about them. They are afraid that the people at work and their neighbors will call them names. They ACCEPT what other people say and the stereotypes that other people place them in.
And, as a result, we are losing ground day by day.

PvtPyle
August 15, 2006, 02:51 PM
Firearms may not be looked upon the same in your area, but everytime there is a clean shoot here there is a collective cheer from the population. We don't tollerate crime like the big urban sprawls and when a badguy gets put down by a cop or a citizen there has been nearly universal positive feedback from the masses. Even the media covers it in a positive light the vast majority of the time. The last big one the cops did not even confiscate the guys gun.

I guess it depends on where you live. living in a free state is quite refreshing.

I do still find it sad though that people have become brainwashed into seeing suppressors as the tool of an assassin. That is so much hollywood crap. In the civilized European countries they sell them over the counter. It is considered bad form to show up at the range without one in many places. Yet here we let the morons in hollywood and the media convince us that they are bad. It is so sad.

Phenom
August 15, 2006, 03:08 PM
PvtPyle, I live in Indiana which is a free state;)

KC&97TA
August 15, 2006, 05:49 PM
I like the Idea of a Suppressed Weapon for HD, Heck I like the Idea of a Suppressed M16 for HD, and If I had the money for a Suppressed M16 there'd probly be a spare AR-15 around too... if the time came to wack someone in my house, I'd be able to shoot Burglers/Rapeists and not wake the Kids Up :D

BEFORE the Cops show up, I could take the Supressor off and change the lower reciever to my AR-15 and give the cops a $800 gun to hold onto, ballistically its the same barrel, how are they going to know, excessive shot holes? "I was scared for my life", And the $12k gun and $1k suppressor could stay home with me, for the next upper and the next battle... Nobody really going to hear the gun shots except for me... so guess who's calling the Police :neener:

Remember even when the cops roll up and you're holding someone at gun point, they want you to "place your weapon on the ground". I reholstered my $900 Kimber and the fact that I was wearing USMC issued body armor with Level 3 sappi plates didn't go over well either. I already have shrapenal in 6 areas of my body, I wasn't getting shot in the chest w/o protection... remember "I was there fearing for the safety of my family member". ;)

PvtPyle
August 15, 2006, 06:36 PM
BEFORE the Cops show up, I could take the Supressor off and change the lower reciever to my AR-15 and give the cops a $800 gun to hold onto, ballistically its the same barrel, how are they going to know, excessive shot holes?

That my friend is called tampering with evidence and in most places it is a felony. Besides, if you are clean, why bother? That is bad advise any way you look at it.

saltydog
August 15, 2006, 08:13 PM
Firearms may not be looked upon the same in your area, but everytime there is a clean shoot here there is a collective cheer from the population. We don't tollerate crime like the big urban sprawls and when a badguy gets put down by a cop or a citizen there has been nearly universal positive feedback from the masses. Even the media covers it in a positive light the vast majority of the time. The last big one the cops did not even confiscate the guys gun.

I guess it depends on where you live. living in a free state is quite refreshing.


Same here in Oklahoma. SMG = just another weapon.:D

If you enjoyed reading about "Tax stamp Class III for self defense?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!