[Tribal]

Here's the thing: I have a Nazi-proofed WWII "FN" Hi-Power and it's seriously the most comfortably firearm I've ever held. It shoots well and is in good working order but has enough wear that it's not worth anything special. The prior owner had it as a bring-back from WWII but left it sitting in a holster for several decades. I've also got a BHP Mk. III, but it just doesn't have that same perfect balance as the WWII one.

If it were you, caliber and model aside, would you carry a Nazi-made gun you knew to be in good working order?

[jc89]

Sure, why not? It's not the gun that's evil, anyways.

[buzz_knox]

If you've got a legitimate reason to carry it (i.e. it works better for you than the other), then go for it. If someone ever asks about why you carry a Nazi gun, simply state that you are redeeming it from its former evil use by putting it to good use.

[Joe Demko]

If I, personally, had been the one who captured it in war, yes. Otherwise, no.

[SuperNaut]

Nobody seems to mind driving around VW's or using IG Farben products, so why not?

[Deer Hunter]

"Nazi guns" were used by the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.

[ScottyT]

As long as it goes bang every time you pull the trigger and you can shoot it comfortably, go for it.

Guns aren't evil, but evil men do use guns occasionally.

[fletcher]

It's not like the gun chose to be Nazi proofed. I'd carry it.

[ronwill]

I concur with what the others are saying. The thing to remember is that it's not the tool but the bearer that is responsible.

[ronaldbeal]

Use... range gun, safe queen, plinker... yes.
Self defense... only if there was no other alternative. Imagine a DA using the proof marks to imply you have less than honorable intentions. Especially if the bad guy is an ethnic minority.
just my $0.02
RB

[threefeathers]

Absolutely. If it is your daily carry piece and you know how to use it. Many of there were carried by Jews in Israel 1948 on.

[ravencon]

No, I wouldn't. My reason has nothing to do with ideology.

If you end up using the gun in a self-defense situation would you want a "Nazi gun" being presented to the jury, especially if the person you shot is of a different race or ethnicity than you are. The unfortunate reality is that we live in a hyper PC, race obsessed society.

[buzz_knox]

Self defense... only if there was no other alternative. Imagine a DA using the proof marks to imply you have less than honorable intentions. Especially if the bad guy is an ethnic minority.


There'd be a greater risk of it being introduced to show state of mind or intent if he'd made the markings himself. But the easy counter to the argument is that it's a weapon he can use more effectively (and thus more safely for all concerned but the bad guy). The fact that it happened to have a Nazi proof doesn't say anything about him except maybe he wants to redeem the weapon.

[jlbraun]

Imagine a DA using the proof marks to imply you have less than honorable intentions.

Exactly. If you really want to carry it, have the swastika overstamped with לעולם לא שוב (Never again!) :D

[RyanM]

Only two people brought up the court thing?

Where are all the people that tell you not to use handloaded ammo?

Anyway, you should always carry the gun you're most comfortable with, regardless of everything else.

[ndh87]

I wouldnt do it just because i'd hate to put the wear on a good condition collectible piece.

I also agree with ravencon.

[Joe Demko]

But the easy counter to the argument is that it's a weapon he can use more effectively (and thus more safely for all concerned but the bad guy).

Which do you think will emotionally resonate more strongly with jurors who aren't necessarily pro-gun: the DA's argument or your counter argument?
When you get your *** caught in the legal wringer (whether you were in the right or not) you are suddenly at the mercy of a whole bunch of other people's emotions.

[sithanas]

Yes - I'd love to send Hitler rolling in the grave knowing that a Jew was carrying a weapon meant for his "master race".

[FuzzyBunny]

I would not take the chance of it being in police custody with no care.

They don't make them anymore so yes, it is a collectors item.

[Dravur]

unless the gun is being haunted by Hitler's ghost, why not?

[Gord]

I'm not one of the guys who tries to invent ways a DA would pin you to the wall in a SD shooting (remember, only use FMJ ammo like the Geneva Convention sez, and load rock salt into your shotgun for the first round so that maybe you can just scare him away instead of having to kill him, and always fire a warning shot, and...) but it seems immediately evident to me, personally, that carrying around a Nazi-stamped firearm for self-defense use is not going to look good in the eyes of a jury. FWIW, I feel the same way about things like Punisher grips on 1911s.

I'm willing to bet that somebody somewhere has used a Nazi-proofed gun to defend themselves with no legal repercussions at some point in recent history, but I'm also willing to bet it happened several decades ago. Since then, the PC tide has come in in a big way.

When prosecution and defense alike are complaining nationwide of juries that are influenced in their verdicts by preconceived notions they get from watching teevee shows, would you really trust 'em not to go straight for the vitriol, especially, if others have noted, your attacker was of an ethnic minority?

[Joe Demko]

Exactly. If you were the one who had personally captured the weapon, it'd be a case of "elderly combat veteran defends himself with war trophy."
If you bought it, OTOH, it becomes a case of "Nazi wannabe murders misguided minority yoot."
I might_might_consider carrying such a gun if I had inherited it from a close relative who had personally captured it in war; then you could theoretically use the "I was carrying Dad's gun that he gave me on his deathbed" defense. All things considered, though, I think I'd confine it to being a collector's piece.

[CajunBass]

I wouldn't but only for the same reason I wouldn't use a Confederate LeMatt for self-defense.

It's more valuable as a collectors item.

[Prince Yamato]

The fact that it happened to have a Nazi proof doesn't say anything about him except maybe he wants to redeem the weapon.

Honestly, most people aren't going to see it this way. They're going to think, "he was trying to macho," or "he's a closet racist." You will be on the news as the guy who "shot someone with a Nazi gun."

Seeing as the gun has historical value, a jury might question why you didn't leave it in a safe. Seeing as there are newly made high-powers on the market, they would question why you didn't buy a similar weapon without the proof marks.

It's kind of like getting a non-reversed swastika tattoo, like those people who are trying to take back the swastika for good are doing. Your intentions may be good, but people who look at you still think, "Nazi." Sure, you can say, "well, they're ignorant!"--- but they are the majority.

[buzz_knox]

When you get your *** caught in the legal wringer (whether you were in the right or not) you are suddenly at the mercy of a whole bunch of other people's emotions.


I've actually had more judges act out of emotion than juries. The jury was swayed by logic rather than emotion. The judges wanted their way and they worked to achieve it, at the expense of the law, the facts, and justice in general. That's what happens when 12 people work together on an issue rather than 1.

The question Tribal is ultimately getting at is whether we should use the weapons that work better for us or find something else that works as well but doesn't have the liability. That brings up the question of whether that will ever happen? How long will it take?

Is it more reckless to carry a weapon we know is inferior for us because of the symbol, or carry the weapon that is better and deal with the symbol?

[Joe Demko]

I suspect that the difference in how well Tribal shoots his Nazi HP as compared to his modern one is inconsequential for self-defense purposes.
The people whose emotions you become subject to aren't limited to the jury. It starts with the arresting officers and spirals out from there.

[Robert14]

Yes, the fact that we are carrying Nazi guns instead of them carrying U.S. guns is very comforting. A reminder of the price paid by our fathers and to remain ever on guard.......

[RNB65]

Yep.

[19-3Ben]

I'm jewish. I'd carry it just for the irony. Me relying on a Nazi made gun to protect my life. If that wouldn't be the biggest "up yours" to Hitler, I dunno what tops it.

[wheelgunslinger]

As a Neo Pagan, I like the delicious irony of the nazi influence being displaced by the proper and historical meaning of the swastika.
I'd carry it. In fact, I'm going shopping for one now.

[CWL]

"Nazi guns" were used by the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.

They really didn't have much choice did they?

As for me, no need or desire to, not that I'd infringe on anyone else's right to do so.

[GEM]

If you aren't a Nazi - do what you want. However, if you do have to use the gun - make sure your lawyer is well aware of the large legal and psychological literature on how emotional issues can influence juries and can work to preclude the DA trying to use that issue.

Even if he or she doesn't mention it explicity - they could legitimately have the gun passed through the jury box. If it has identifiable Nazi marking - that could influence someone.

There's plenty of research on similar games. And you won't see such stuff in case law reports. All they have to do is pass the gun around and that won't show up in data bases.

When push comes to shove, I think it is a bit of risk for little gain if you have other good guns.

Why have your lawyer hire an expert for a few thousand bucks to deal with this, if need be?

[jhansman]

Only semi-related, but I work with a person who absolutely refuses to buy anything German, but has all kinds of Japanese made goods. Selective indignation...:rolleyes:

Oh, and to answer the OP's question, yes, absolutely. If I could get my hands on a genuine WWII era Luger, you bet.

[rcmodel]

Bring-back Nazi PPK's were a staple LEO BUG back in the day, and still are!

Worrying about the legal ramifications of using one in a justifiable SD shoot is silly.

rcmodel

[Joe Demko]

This isn't "back in the day."
I suspect that there is no great number of cops still using WW2-era BUGs.

[GBExpat]

If it were you, caliber and model aside, would you carry a Nazi-made gun you knew to be in good working order?

Ab-so-lute-ly!

[Carl N. Brown]

Nazi-proofed WWII "FN" Hi-Power

If the story I heard is not just folklore, the FN workers made guns for their Nazi conquerors by day and slipped guns to the guerrilla underground by night. Great provenance for a collectible fighting weapon.

I am sorry I let the Walther Polizei Pistole I once had slip away.

[GEM]

Worrying about the legal ramifications of using one in a justifiable SD shoot is silly.


Problem with such statements are that if you are in the courtroom, someone thinks it wasn't justifiable.

Justifiable is in the eyes of the jury. Be sure to help your case by talking to the officer that you used your Nazi gun as it shoots so well as to be sure to 'stop' the goblin. :D

[19-3Ben]

If the story I heard is not just folklore, the FN workers made guns for their Nazi conquerors by day and slipped guns to the guerrilla underground by night. Great provenance for a collectible fighting weapon.

I don't know about FN. But I have heard from reliable sources that Beretta did that.

[Blakenzy]

I wouldnt do it just because i'd hate to put the wear on a good condition collectible piece.
My thoughts exactly...

Now, if you happen to look a lot like a Hitler's Youth posterboy/skinhead/white supremacist, and you find yourself having to gun down some jewish BG while in NYC, then I would worry a little about it having Nazi markings:uhoh:

[blkbrd666]

You could get an engraving pen and etch a Menorah or MagenDavid on it and claim that it's been "cleansed" or "anti-Hitlerized".

[OFT]

I don't see the problem. I have a Luger, P-38 and a Radom. I somtimes carry the P-38 or the Radom and never give it a second thought. Would you give up splitting firewood because Lizzy Borden used an ax?

[brighamr]

Tribal -

Your question is great for substitution:

Would you drive a japanese car?
Would you carry a british gun?
Would you <adjective> a <label> <inanimate object>?


Labels do not change an object. If the object is useful, don't disqualify the object for it's intended purpose, based on a label.


After all, If I called an AR a "Evil Baby killing, lead spewing instrument of death AR", would that not make the AR useful for competitions?

[Joe Demko]

No, but if I had to defend myself with an ax, I'd prefer to not have to explain why I was carrying Lizzy's own personal ax around.

[blkbrd666]

...thus the "cleansing".

[Gord]

Would you give up splitting firewood because Lizzy Borden used an ax?

That isn't even comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a Buick, or a fossilized elephant turd, or something. We're talking about self-defense and the subsequent scrutiny it will bring, using a weapon stamped with identifiable markings used by an idealism that is universally reviled, for good reason - not some platonic, everyday activity with a common implement that so happened to be used by one or two nutjobs in knocking off a few people here and there.

Labels do not change an object.

Yes, they do. You can wax philosophical all you want, but the fact is that you are going to receive more - probably much more - negative attention and scrutiny if you kill someone with something that is generally considered "infamous" in some sense. Joe Demko draws parallels to "Lizzie Borden's personal axe"; in much the same way, most people, I imagine, would immediately connect Nazi proofs with the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime as a whole, nevermind whether that specific gun (or knife, or whatever) actually facilitated anyone's death.

[Eightball]

If it was in a state to where a brand-new item was worth more than the Nazi-proofed model, I'd consider it, but only if it was damn near "perfect" for me--and that's just a consideration from the SD shooting scenario. If it wasn't worth a ton of money, and it was "the thing", then sure I'd do it. Let the PC guys worry about it later. If you were a member of racist groups or whatnot, then no, don't carry it.

[Joe Demko]

The differences of opinion in this thread stem largely from those who would carry it thinking like a typical gun owner i.e. "it's just a gun" trusting that those whom you may have to face in the event of its use will think likewise.

Those of us on the other side aren't quite as trusting.

Shooting somebody, even in justified self-defense, is such a legal nightmare that it seems worth it to me to eschew Nazi-marked guns, Punisher grips, and other stuff that may get you labeled as a whack-job by the cops, prosecutor, judge, jury, et.al. That stuff is fine for the range, but if I end up "in the system," I want to appear as John "Boringly Normal" Q. Public who defended himself with his non-descript gun.

[Blakenzy]

...thus the "cleansing".

Defacing a weapon with historical value isn't "cleansing", no matter how PC it may seem today.

[eric.cartman]

I can sooooooo see the headline...

You shot a "socially disadvantaged" member of our society who was just about to turn his life around... oh, and the prosecutor is Jewish.

But seriously, as long as there is no swastika on it, i think you're ok.

[gopguy]

No for several reasons. The age of the gun. It may be in good working order but the parts are aged and may well break at the wrong time . With the FN made pistols, especially the HP-35 you have to remember the stories that the workers sometimes attempted to sabotage the guns by not heat treating the parts that needed it.

I have no issue with the Nazi markings on the gun, but you may have to use the gun for a defensive shooting. Imagine if you get some zealot prosecutor who then plays on the emotion of the jury and portrays you as someone who must have Nazi sympathies, since you carried one of their dated arms...There are better choices to carry.

[brighamr]

Not to hi-jack, but given the differences of opinion, I have a question for those who woudn't carry a weapon based on it's label/history:

What weapon do you carry? It can't be an FN 5 and 7, or a g17, or any glock for that matter. The glocks are plastic and go through metal detectors; according to the previously stated assumptions, the juries would go wild at even the mention of a plastic gun. The 5x7 is armor piercing. The .45ACP is too big a round, like you are looking for trouble. The hi-cap 9mms are too many rounds, like you are looking to take on a gang. The .357 and .44 are way too powerful (Dirty Harry). The .38spc is the "saturday night special" round, made specifically for bar-room murders.

These are generalized statements, stemming from anti-propaganda, but I'm curious... where do you draw the line between "It's politically correct to carry" and "the jury is going to convict no matter what the evidence if this is carried"?

Please don't take this post offensively, I am asking a serious question.

[LA Rondo]

I don't see why anyone would want to even own one of those to begin with.

Except in the situation where I was the soldier who overcame the enemy combatant and was able to seize his weapon.

Any other personal association with this type of firearm bares any grounds or platform, in my view.

[john917v]

Along the lines of what Supernaut was saying, we drive Japanese cars, watch Japanese TVs, from the same nation that bombed Pearl Harbor. so why not shoot a Nazi gun? To me, it is like saying guns are bad, and people who fire them are too. Let's say the nazi guns are melted down, and reforged, then you will have the same material in a bumper, or whatever else it is made into. Same stuff.

[ronaldbeal]

reply to Brighamr:
First, there is a much more emotional reaction with Nazis, and other well known hate groups. The association with the other guns you mention is more technical than emotional. It is far easier to disprove a technical misconception than an emotional one. A good defense lawyer can have every cop that testifies indicate they carry a Glock or similar pistol with 9mm or larger rounds, etc. It is easy to compare cartridge sizes. Pretty pictures and technical data can dispel myths about caliber and penetration etc... But all the pictures, graphs, and testimonies in the world may not dispel a notion that a shooting was really compelled by hate, and not self defense when the jury stares at a swastika on the gun.

My $0.02
RB

[Matt-J2]

Brighamr, there's a bit of difference there. Any of you examples, there's a real good chance the prosecutor will have to explain them. They'll have to try and convince the jury that X ammo is bad. They won't have to explain the Nazis.
I have no idea if it would actually matter. I'd probably not carry it though. Unless I happened to be Jewish, in which case, it would amuse me no end to carry it.

[Phil DeGraves]

I wouldn't but only for the same reason I wouldn't use a Confederate LeMatt for self-defense.


The most compelling reason is that there are many more suitable firearms for that purpose. The only two "Nazi" guns I ever had (I don't have them anymore and they were both poorly refinished and therefore not worth much as collectors items) were a AC44 P-38 and an Astra 600. Neither would be my choice for a self defense gun, although i wouldn't have hesitated using them if that was all I had; but since they weren't all I had, and I got rid of them before others...well you see where I'm going with it. There are better guns with better sights, better triggers, better metallurgy, better calibers (so no Mauser HSC or Walther PPK) that I would use for SD.

[Vern Humphrey]

If it were you, caliber and model aside, would you carry a Nazi-made gun you knew to be in good working order?

Wal, hail, Tribal, I carry a gun that was made in Noo Yawk City:eek: (a Kimber.)

[19-3Ben]

Along the lines of what Supernaut was saying, we drive Japanese cars, watch Japanese TVs, from the same nation that bombed Pearl Harbor. so why not shoot a Nazi gun?

I find this logic very faulty. Don't get me wrong, I said I WOULD carry the gun. But I don't think this is a good reason. It's one thing to buy a product from a country with which we were once at war. The guys president and CEO of Sony are not the guys who were in charge of the Batan death march. Nor are the heads of BMW, MB, or VW the same guys (although the companies are the same) who were making tanks for the Germans in WW2.

That particular gun on the other hand, WAS built by and for the exact force we were fighting. It would be more akin to watching ESPN on Hirohito's actual TV, than a modern day Sony.

It's very different to have a product from a country we once fought, than to have the product that was built by and for that specific evil force.

That said, I think it's Nazi history makes it even cooler, and the sense of irony is awesome. as I said earlier in the thread, hell yeah carry it!!!

[CWL]

My pistol of choice is the anti-Nazi gun, the M1911. Being that mine is custom-built and there is none other exactly like it, it goes against everything that National Socialism stands for.

[Vern Humphrey]

Although no longer politically correct, taking enemy weapons as trophies is an ancient and honorable custom. Why should I not use a weapon taken from yesterday's enemy to deal with today's threat?

[Joe Demko]

Because if you aren't the one who took it, it's not your trophy and, therefore, not an honorable symbol of your warrior accomplishment.

[Vern Humphrey]

Then it's just a good used gun.

[SuperNaut]

I find this logic very faulty...

...It's very different to have a product from a country we once fought, than to have the product that was built by and for that specific evil force.

Sure, it is different, but only due to the fact that the comparisons are different.

But as far as the logic is concerned: Since we are abstracted both temporally and ideologically from the NAZI regime, any moral components attached to objects from that regime are also abstracted. So morally, buying a product made by NAZI's or supporting a company founded by NAZI's is a moral abstraction and therefore both examples would be morally equal.

Purely my opinion.

[BlindJustice]

Not all Luftwaffe ( Air Force ) or soldiers in the Vermacht ( Army ) were members of the Nazi party, most were not I believe. The SS divisions, however, were and bought into the evil stuff. The weapons, even those that had been used in WWI, like P-08s were stamped with the Nazi acceptance prpof marks.. If the gun had an SS Death head stamp on it
I'd put it in the safe. FWIW - Hardly any of the Top Aces of the LUftwaffe
joined the Nazi party Goering once asked his commander of the fighters
after the loss of the Battle of Britain what he needed to fight the allies.
Adolph Galland, youngest General up to that point in the war, replied

"Give me a Squadron of Spitfires"

As far as carrying it, well, I have a CZ 75B I'm most comfrotable with
so it's a mot point.

I know a couple, Laura and Louie who inherited some handguns. Louie's
father died suddenly some month's back. His father never talked of his handguns. They are getting, as soon as they get a safe, since they have teens, the following....
With Nazi proof marks,
2 - P-38s, a P-08 Luger - looks like it was WWI then WWII as well, also
a Polish Viz Radom
ALso
Colt COmmander 60s prod.
SUper Blackhawk .44 Mag late 60s
and a Berretta Tomcat.

I told them it's a good collection of 9mms used by the
Axis in the euro theater of WWII. If they had any interest
in making it more complete to add a Nazi proofed BHP as well
as a Ingalls ( Canadian buuilt ) BHP as well as a WWII build
1911 Colt or Rem Rand/'Ithaca for the major pistols
used in the ETO during WWII. Oh, they had a Webley in the
colection as well.

I also advised to take a basic gun handling course for the
both of them - and told them the COmmander was the best for
SD/HD if they needed to choose and use one of these as a shooter.

It looked like the Dad had picked these up in the 50s/60s considering
his age.

I can't emagine having a son and not showing him the collection - the
Dad wasn't old enough for WWII, but might have been a Korean War
vet. dunnoh.

As far as being in court afterwards, I'd rather be judged by 12 than
buried by 6, eh?

Randall

[Joe Demko]

Then it's just a good used gun.

Care to gamble your freedom and finances on being able to convince all those folks from the criminal (and possibly) civil legal systems of that? Or might it not be more prudent to just carry something sans Nazi marks?
There're enough ways for the system to thoroughly screw you over without supplying it with additional possibilities.

In the couple-three decades following WWII, there were enough bring-backs and surplus guns in active circulation that nobody thought twice about them. That was decades ago. Today, Nazi guns are collectable and TPTB are not unlikely to wonder why you are carrying such a piece instead of a newer (read: better) piece. Maybe those Nazi markings have some personal appeal to you? Hmmm?:scrutiny:

[Vern Humphrey]

Care to gamble your freedom and finances on being able to convince all those folks from the criminal (and possibly) civil legal systems of that?
Are you saying that by carrying a war surplus gun, I can turn a legal case of self-defense into murder?

If it's a good shoot, and a justified use of self-defense, it's a good shoot. The model of gun, or the markings on it won't change that.

Can anyone cite a case of a good shoot where the shooter was convicted of a crime because he had a gun with Nazi markings? Or a suit where the markings on the gun decided the outcome?

[SuperNaut]

Deja vu

Isn't this the stuff we discussed in the Punisher Grips thread?

[Joe Demko]

Nope. Not saying you'll get convicted of murder at all. I'm saying your trip through the legal wringer may end up being more difficult and expensive than it needed to be. I'm sure that you are, personally, a good and ethical man who would never murder anybody. However, I'm not sure that all self-defense shootings in which you might be involved will be guaranteed to be uniformly clearcut and unambiguous with you spotlighted as the good guy. Life is often unfair like that.
Do what you want. I just don't believe in borrowing grief.

[LA Rondo]

I'd probably not carry it though. Unless I happened to be Jewish, in which case, it would amuse me no end to carry it.
I don't understand how the fact of being Jewish would create such amusement, unless the Jewish person was never directly affected and/or suffered from ethnical prosecution, in which case the thought is only a quick idea.

While on the other side, if one had actually experienced the Shoah while being a victim, I hardly believe that such an authentic artifact of weaponry would cause amusement, through ownership.

[LA Rondo]

Not all Luftwaffe ( Air Force ) or soldiers in the Vermacht ( Army ) were members of the Nazi party, most were not I believe.
That's absolutely correct.

BTW, it's spelled 'Wehrmacht'.

I don't think there are "Nazi" marks on WWI weaponry, since the Nazi party came to power in 1933.

[KI.W.]

Only: certainly.

[TexasRifleman]

'm jewish. I'd carry it just for the irony. Me relying on a Nazi made gun to protect my life. If that wouldn't be the biggest "up yours" to Hitler, I dunno what tops it.

Very true! Nothing says "You Lost" better than taking their weapons for your own use.

[psyopspec]

I wouldn't carry it, because of the possible ramifications in a courtroom after using it in SD. I know it's just an object. I realize you shoot it well, and that makes it a good tool for SD. But what I, or any other member of this board thinks about you doesn't matter. The question is, what will the jury think? This is not a question I've ever contended with when selecting a defense weapon, but you're dealing with a symbol that can cause a universal knee-jerk reaction like few others.

[Vern Humphrey]

I wouldn't carry it, because of the possible ramifications in a courtroom after using it in SD
What are the "ramifications in a courtroom?"

Can anyone cite a case where letigimate self-defense was deemed a crime because the person defending himself used a war surplus pistol?

Can anyone cite a civil case where this issue even came up, let alone decided the case?

[buck460XVR]

Here's the thing: I have a Nazi-proofed WWII "FN" Hi-Power and it's seriously the most comfortably firearm I've ever held. It shoots well and is in good working order but has enough wear that it's not worth anything special. The prior owner had it as a bring-back from WWII but left it sitting in a holster for several decades. I've also got a BHP Mk. III, but it just doesn't have that same perfect balance as the WWII one.

If it were you, caliber and model aside, would you carry a Nazi-made gun you knew to be in good working order?

you bet I would. If it was the most accurate and dependable weapon I owned and I needed to use it for self defense, I'd rather be alive and have to hassle with a bleeding heart DA than to be dead and have them say "well at least he missed the BG with an PC gun"!

IMHO, Those that are afraid to use a nazi gun or improper bullets to defend themselves or their loved ones more'n likely wouldn't have the guts to pull the trigger in a life or death situation anyway. By the time they figure out if they've done everthing right to win their case in court they'll be stone cold.

Like Vern said... If it's a good shoot, and a justified use of self-defense, it's a good shoot. The model of gun, or the markings on it won't change that.

[nwilliams]

I own a couple guns with Nazi proofs on them, one of them is an FN HP.

I have no problem owning Axis power guns, I like owning guns from all sides good and bad. I don't see guns as being evil just because they were used by evil people, the gun is just the innocent victim in that case. I think the Walther P38 and the Luger are very cool guns and I wouldn't mind owning them even if they do have a Nazi history. Some people like collection Nazi memorabilia and the like, I find that pretty disgusting. However Nazi guns are to me just like any other guns, whether they are American, German, Russian or whatever.

To get to the root of your question however....
No, I would not carry a Nazi gun just because there are better options out there when it comes to picking a carry gun. To be more specific, would I carry my Nazi proofed FN P35? Well probably not, its just a collection piece and not really a great choice as a ccw out of all the guns I own but I could say the same about my WW2 era 1911a1 US Army issue. The fact is I wouldn't carry a gun with Nazi history simply because I would rather carry something more practical. Lugers, P38's and P35's from that era generally don't have the features I look for in a reliable carry gun

[Joe Demko]

Can anyone cite a civil case where this issue even came up, let alone decided the case?

Consider this from upthread:

Even if he or she doesn't mention it explicity - they could legitimately have the gun passed through the jury box. If it has identifiable Nazi marking - that could influence someone.

There's plenty of research on similar games. And you won't see such stuff in case law reports. All they have to do is pass the gun around and that won't show up in data bases.

Once again, YMMV, but if I'm the guy with my **** on the chopping block, I'd just as soon not have something with Nazi markings on it associated with me.
If our OP was in a situation where the Nazi HP was the only gun available to him, I might think differently. However, he's already stated that he owns at least one other piece suitable for self-defense. The Nazi gun just "feels" incrementally better to him during his trips to the range.
Self-defense is more than just shooting to save your life. It's also about keeping and defending your life_as you are used to living it_following the shooting. You may find concern over the markings ridiculous. I find refusal to switch to using another weapon_that you already own and is suitable for self-defense_when that switch may make your legal problems even a little lighter ridiculous.

[paintballdude902]

i would when ur carrying take the gun that you can conceal and shoot the best and are most comfortable with

if it came down to it and i was better with a .45colt single action (like the peace maker) and only had that and say a glock in .45 acp i would gladly carry my revolver


deer hunter not just the jews used them

everyone in warsaw that could hold a gun used one in the uprising prior to adolph hitler personally giving the order to level the city

sorry i have polish military in my family including polish generals cant resist chiming in on that type of subject

[gtmerkley]

No now if you need me I be out shooting my AK47.
Just kidding I love a good SS SHOOTER

[Joe Demko]

Mas Ayoob posts once in a while here. I'd like to hear his opinion on the matter.

[nwilliams]

One should also keep in mind that all former Nazi guns can be associated only with an evil past.

This is my German K98 converted to .308 by the Israelis, the Nazi proofs and markings were removed and replaced with Israeli markings after the war. Maybe not a Nazi gun but certainly used by the Germans in WW2 only to be used later to defend Israel, a pleasant irony if there ever was one:D The point I'm trying to make here is that an evil past doesn't mean the gun will forever be destined to evil deeds. So why can't a gun that served the Axis power in WW2 not be used to defend the life of an American today?

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb264/nwilliams27/IsraeliMauser1.jpg

[blkbrd666]

Quote:

"Defacing a weapon with historical value isn't "cleansing", no matter how PC it may seem today."


If I remember correctly the OP stated that the gun has so much wear on it that doesn't have any special value. So, given that, all the Nazi proof marks could be ground off the weapon and voila', it becomes nothing different that what it already is..."A GUN". Now all the people with a mental hangup don't have a problem with it. Gee, that was easy!

Now, personally, I would put it with all my other WWII collectibles with Japanese signatures, swastikas, crossed cannons, and bullet holes in them. Why would I want to keep something like that???...because it's history and I'm mentally stable enough not to fear inanimate objects.

[ArmedBear]

None of my pistols are Nazis.

In fact, I think they're Jews.

They're really not practicing, though. They still work on Saturdays.

[RyanM]

You know, I think the mistake people are making is assuming that the prosecuter is going to know Richard about guns.

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/printitem.cfm?ItemNum=8239797

Lots of great pictures on this auction. So, you've got a microscopic little eagle in a few places, two of which have even more microscopic swastikas that I can't even make out, even though the pictures are pretty generously sized. Seriously, I think you'd need a jeweler's loupe to see the swastikas. Plus, by the the time you even get to court, the gun will have been in an evidence locker long enough for those proofs to have rusted away into oblivion.

Really, the prosecutor even noticing those marks, and knowing their significance, would be like, I dunno. If you shot someone with a Ruger Mk.I/II/III, and the DA brought up the fact that the Mk.I design is almost a direct clone of the Japanese Nambu, which was used to piss off a small number of Americans in WWII, at least those that found out they were shot.

[junyo]

Let's see, if it's a war trophy, that means the gun's already failed at least one owner. Sorry, I only carry winner's guns.

Joking. But yeah, a piece of history notwithstanding, I have no use for Nazi or Imperial Japanese memorabilia. I'd use it if it were all I had, but I wouldn't own or carry it by choice; and to back up all the people talking about the legal ramifications, yeah, if I were on a jury I'd at least consider why, out of all the guns in the world, you're carrying one with a swastika on it.

[blkbrd666]

Quote:

"the Japanese Nambu, which was used to piss off a small number of Americans in WWII, at least those that found out they were shot."


That's a hoot!!! "Dangit, I think a skeeter done bit me!".

[.cheese.]

On one hand as a gunny I want to say "Yes".

On the other hand as a Jew I want to say "No".

Not sure which hand wins. After all there are no bad guns, only bad people. However, I'd hate to think I was holding something that could have been used to kill one of my relatives. I don't know really yes or no.

[Joe Demko]

If you shot someone with a Ruger Mk.I/II/III, and the DA brought up the fact that the Mk.I design is almost a direct clone of the Japanese Nambu,

Not really. The 8 x 22 Nambu pistols were locked breech centerfires. (http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg114-e.htm) The Rugers were/are a simple blowback design. In silhouette, the Rugers do look somewhat like the Nambu. They also look something like a Luger, a Lahti, or a Colt Woodsman.

[Cannonball888]

You can remove the markings from the gun, but the evil therein can only be removed by a qualified firearms exorcist.

[RyanM]

Not really. The 8 x 22 Nambu pistols were locked breech centerfires. The Rugers were/are a simple blowback design. In silhouette, the Rugers do look somewhat like the Nambu. They also look something like a Luger, a Lahti, or a Colt Woodsman

Whoops, my mistake. Bill Ruger did manage to make a couple Baby Nambu replicas in his garage, though, and incorperated a few design features into the Mk. I.

Even so, my point still stands. The Nazi proofs are unobtrusive enough, and DAs unknowledgeable enough, that you'd probably be the only person in the courtroom to even know it's a Nazi gun.

Like handloads. When has that ever even been brought up in court, when the defendent didn't mention it? They're little round thingies with a flat end and a round end, and the round end has a deadly cop-killer little hole in it. The hole traps a pocket of air when it hits, which causes the victim to die of air emobilism. I saw it on CBS so it must be true! That's the extent of your average DA's knowledge about ammunition. How are they going to recognize Nazi proof marks?

[Joe Demko]

Bill Ruger did manage to make a couple Baby Nambu replicas in his garage, though, and incorperated a few design features into the Mk. I.

You're right; he did.

[2RCO]

FWIW Sgt. York carried a CZ27 for self defense after the war. It was Nazi Proofed as well.

However I wouldn't want to have to justify those little swastikas to a jury. If I was Jewish I would carry it though.

[Poor East Texan]

I reckon not.

But then if I do a SD shoot there is at least a 50/50 chance it will be a Bulgarian Makarov doing the shoot....

My truck gun is a nice American S&W however as it won't rust and CAN'T look much worse!

[catbite45]

The black defense group who's adventures are recounted in _Negroes With Guns_ formed an NRA club to get rifle training and military surplus rifles which they used to beat off white attackers who used an early form of drive by shootings.

They needed more rifles so they purchased captured german rifles with nazi markings and some russian marked rifle. Those rifles were used by white state forces as 'evidence' that they were communist, and the FBI and state forces combined to attack and disarm the black forces.

As it turns out the group's leader, a former Marine Sgt, really was a commie who fled to join Castro.

I would not use a nazi marked pistol for defense purposes for another 50 years or so, until folks finish forgetting what it means.

[mtngunr]

If my money went to a Nazi cause, not a chance...ditto, PRC, North Korean, etc. guns....otherwise, it's just a gun that works, its pedigree certainly not something to brag about....

[Sun195]

My grandfather brought a G33/40 back from the war w/ Nazi proof marks. He converted it into 30.06 w/ an old 1903A3 barrel and put a hunting stock on it. Only gun he used for hunting. It's a great gun w/ great history.

Would I feel the same way about running around in a pair of jack boots w/ a luger strapped to my belt? Probably not. To each their own.

[gcrookston]

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/7331/dsc00008kd0.jpg

'nough said

[Cosmoline]

Yeah, but I'd take a dremel to the stamp.

[Cuda]

I have one and no I won't carry it. It was taken from a german officer whos LAST action was to shoot an American soldier. Dad gave it to me so I would never forget and it's ashame because it's a beautiful weapon.

C

[Wheeler44]

The chances of using it defensively are so slim........the chance of an "anti" DA knowing the significance of the markings are slim...
The chance of messing up in a SD situation 'cuz of mental baggage about the weapon.......well it ain't the odds it's the stakes...
Use the dang thing, who knows you may redeem it.

[nwilliams]

Defacing an historic gun just because it has a Nazi proof mark is something I can't agree with. Sure the Nazis were evil and represented the darkest chapter in 20th century history but covering it up and pretending they never existed isn't the answer. Let us not forget the famous words of George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it"

Just as a side note, keep in mind that not all German soldiers and officers during WW2 were Nazis. The Nazi regime only represented a select group of soldiers, officers and politicians from the early 30's until the end of the war. Anyone who thinks all Germans were Nazis during WW2 need to crack open a few history books and do some reading. The fact is you may have a gun with Nazi proof marks but that doesn't mean your gun was ever used by a Nazi. Many Germans both military and civilian despised the actions and ideologies of the 3rd Reich but had little choice but to obey.

Just something to keep in mind since people have a tendency to label all German soldiers in WW2 as Nazis when in reality that's not really historically accurate. The same way not all Russians supported the rule of Stalin, not all Germans supported the rule of Hitler during those times. Col. Claus von Stauffenberg who they just made a movie about is a prime example of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg

[lechiffre]

no i would not carry a nazi gun.

in a situation like the op has i might consider getting another old hi-power without the markings

[RON in PA]

This Jewish person has 2 WW2 German pistols with Waffenampt markings. They are part of history, I've got 'em, Adolph and his buddies are dead. Whether or not a DA or jury would be affected by the fact that a pistol was produced for the Germans in WW2 is conjecture. More important is the legality and justification of the shoot. If it was a "good" shooting why would it ever go to trial.

Now the main reason for my posting on this. The pistol in question may be a good shooter, reliable and accurate, but is this with ball ammo or hollow point? Older 9x19 mm guns are often not reliable unless fed ball ammo. If the gun won't shoot or feed modern HP defense ammo it's no good for a self defense gun, don't use it.

[.cheese.]

oh whoops.... I misread the question. I answered originally as if the question was "Would you own a Nazi gun?"

I can definitively say that no, I would not carry one if I ever owned one.

I believe a member in this thread put it well previously by saying that the evil within them could only be driven out by a qualified exorcist.

[junyo]

The fact is you may have a gun with Nazi proof marks but that doesn't mean your gun was ever used by a Nazi. Many Germans both military and civilian despised the actions and ideologies of the 3rd Reich but had little choice but to obey.So a lot of Germans didn't agree with the Nazis? I'm sure that was of great comfort to the men at Dunkirk and Bastogne. If someone didn't agree with that ideology yet picked up a gun and killed Americans (or Brits, or Canadians, or Poles...) or was prepared to do so for that ideology then there's really not that big of a difference. People always have a choice. Lots of people went to concentration camps (and/or died) rather than fight for the Nazis.

You can admire the design and appreciate the history just as well in a case/safe as you can on your hip.

[The Tourist]

I thought about this topic for quite some time. I know that the OP is wondering about atrocities and supporting that idea with money from our purchases. If that is the concept, then we must also look in other areas.

I own a CZ 83. Yikes the communists slaughtered millions of their own people, exported AK-47s that continue to kill in Africa. Their weapons contributed to the killing of +50 thousand American boys in Southeast Asia.

Would I own a broad sword? Do I really want a weapon in the house that killed untold thousands on a papal decree over the city limits of Jerusalem and a cup of a carpenter?

Why would I seek out a 45-70 rifle? That cartridge is responsible for the genocide of numerous American Indian tribes.

Can I justify my purchase of a Sicilian switchblade? How can I give a nod to a tool that helped the mafia control gambling, shipping and entire city governments?

How about 9x19mm ammunition? How about SAA Colts? Ever think about the Minie balls of our Southern Struggle for Independence?

Those are just the examples I thought of in five minutes.

[seeker_two]

With the family history and historic significance....No, I wouldn't carry it.

For the same reason, I don't use my granddad's K-38 as a truck gun. I want to keep it in good shape to pass down to my children and grandchildren.

For carry or range use, I'd stick with something that's only value is what you paid the gun store for it....

[Guillermo]

I like the "never again" inscription idea. Would go with that whether I carried it or not.

Used to work with a black guy named Willy. Looked like a dark version of Mr. Clean. Shaved head, earring, big biceps that he liked to show off. Willy carried a straight razor styled knife with a KKK crest on the blade. When I asked him why he would carry such a thing he said so that he could “give it back to them” if the occasion presented itself.

The bottom line is that there are reasons other than advocacy to carry something symbolic.

[psyopspec]

Vern, I did a search; I got nothing. Another poster contributed this:
The black defense group who's adventures are recounted in _Negroes With Guns_ formed an NRA club to get rifle training and military surplus rifles which they used to beat off white attackers who used an early form of drive by shootings.

They needed more rifles so they purchased captured german rifles with nazi markings and some russian marked rifle. Those rifles were used by white state forces as 'evidence' that they were communist, and the FBI and state forces combined to attack and disarm the black forces.

As it turns out the group's leader, a former Marine Sgt, really was a commie who fled to join Castro.

I would not use a nazi marked pistol for defense purposes for another 50 years or so, until folks finish forgetting what it means.

but didn't provide a source regarding the prosecution's handling of the history/markings on the weapons. It seems odd that they would use the Nazi (fascist) past of the weapons to accuse the defendants of being communist.

Anyway, my bottom line is that, yes, I'm purely speculating regarding how a jury would react to a Nazi marked gun. This is because juries come from the general citizenry, and my interactions with them don't suggest to them having a logical reaction to the proofmark(s), but rather a knee-jerk emotional one.

Once again, as I stated earlier, what I think shouldn't stop the OP or anyone else from carrying a self-defense tool of their choosing. Just saying I wouldn't do it.

[LKB3rd]

Sure, why not? It's not the gun that's evil, anyways.

Absolutely. I doubt the pistol is an anti semite. Any lawyer trying to paint me as a Nazi because of the pistol I own is going to make a better case for their own stupidity than I ever could.

[ChristopherG]

A cop on the street who sees that you are carrying this gun, for any reason, is going have reasonable suspicion--if you are caucasian--that you are a member of a Skinhead/White Supremacist group--a group known to be extremely anti-establishment, violent, and hoplo-centric. You explaining it's not so will mean nothing; you are going to be closely scrutinized, and if he can find a way to get a warrant to look for other evidence of your criminal lifestyle, he will.

Of course, assuming you have no such connections and nothing else to hide, that'll all come to naught; but it's a confrontation you might want to figure in to your decision.

[nwilliams]

So a lot of Germans didn't agree with the Nazis? I'm sure that was of great comfort to the men at Dunkirk and Bastogne. If someone didn't agree with that ideology yet picked up a gun and killed Americans (or Brits, or Canadians, or Poles...) or was prepared to do so for that ideology then there's really not that big of a difference. People always have a choice. Lots of people went to concentration camps (and/or died) rather than fight for the Nazis.

True you make a valid point, I won't argue with that.

I would point out however that in Vietnam many American soldiers were forced to fight for a cause they did not support or even fully understand. It happens any time a country forces people into military service, some may resist but many will just do as they are told.

[Joe Demko]

I know scads of people who own and shoot WWII-era German guns.
I know exactly one guy who carries one. He's 32 years old and he carries a Nazi-marked P-38. He is an open, avowed white supremacist. He bought the piece and carries it specifically because of its connection to an ideology he supports.
One data point does not indicate a trend. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. Etc.

[45Broomhandle]

What is all this? Aren't WE the ones who constantly tell anit-gun nuts that the gun is ONLY an innocent tool, it's the user who may be at fault?

NO discussion necessary! Who cares WHO made it or WHY? It's a TOOL! Nothing else. If it works and you're satisfied with it...

Nazis came up with the jet plane. OH MY GOD! We must quit flying in these evil jet airliners!!! :eek:

'Nuff said???

Best regards from "The Sunshine State" ~ ~ ~ 45Broomhandle

[Clean97GTI]

well I don't generally carry any of my historical arms except trips to the range but I've got no problem enjoying my Stalin-era commie guns, my Japanese imperialist guns or my evil black baby-killing rifles and then coming home to my very non-PC American Pit Bull Terrier.

[butt_ugly_cowboy]

Aw heck, I have an old Nazi gun, so does that mean that I am a Nazi supporter? NO! Its a collectors item, so I dont take it anywhere, only because I dont want nothing to happen to it.

[GEM]

I would suggest those who ask if x or y or z will influence a jury and then ask for a specific case, to go research the literature on jury influence.

Such literature is based on the impressions that lawyers have of what will influence a jury but is may not be a topic that will make it into the case law explicitly for the most part. They know to play games with jury selection and emotional issues.

The researchers take mock juries and then try these various manipulations and see the results. Since there is a good solid data base that emotional laden issues can influence juries - vividness, presentation style, etc. AND that specific firearms related issues can influence juries - I would not resort to two hoary old chestnuts:

1. If it is a good shoot, it won't matter - Well, if it is a good shoot - you wouldn't be in court, now would you? Why all the lawyers if it was so obviously a good shoot?

2. Show me the case law - such things don't get into the case law except in extreme certain circumstances - like race, repressed memory, etc.. If your case is ambiguous and the jury gets to handle the gun - not a weird thing - or just see a big picture of it and it has some inflamatory symbology - that can do you in and NOT make 'case law'

The folks who do such reseach, do state that one shouldn't be afraid to use efficacious techniques to defend yourself BUT you need a lawyer who knows about such. This was stated back in the early 90's in the literature. Mas just said the same thing in his writings and recently in Combat Handguns or some such popular magazine.

The writings I refer to are in peer reviewed legal and applied legal-psychological journals.

I would value such advice as compared to the two hoary old chestnuts, I mentioned.

If you are faced with such a situation - you need expert opinion and that cost will far exceed the cost of a new gun. I know the cost of expert opinion - about two hours is a brand new gun.

[capttom]

The only HiPower I've ever owned was just such a gun, a Nazi-proofed bring back that I acquired. It was sweet shooting with a good trigger. I never hesitated to tote it when appropriate. Personally, I think some people worry too much.
Lots of people don't mind SovBlock AKs or Chicom copies of Tokarevs and I think Hitler had nothing on Stalin and Mao. Do I own examples? No but then I don't care fo AKs or Toks.
Would I have bought a new Norinco .45 when they were being imported? No, but only because I contribute enough to the Chinese economy witout helping them any more.

[Vern Humphrey]

If it is a sin to carry a weapon from an evil regime, all those who carry Makarovs are going to hell.

[Joe Demko]

I never said anything about sins or moral right/wrongs. I have exclusively addressed, as have others, the issue of the prejudicial effect Nazi markings may have on those with whom you may have to deal in the legal system.
You asked about case law and that was addressed, but you haven't responded to that.

[The Bushmaster]

For crying out loud...It's a handgun people...Just a handgun...YES...Carry it...

All this folderah over a dumb stamp...What is it? A swastica? Might even have collectors value...

[psyopspec]

If it is a sin to carry a weapon from an evil regime, all those who carry Makarovs are going to hell.

I haven't contended such, nor has any other contributor to this thread. However, I would like to point out that a Makarov by itself does not constitute a recognizable symbol to most of the modern American public, whereas an eagle with a swastika placed in front of it may comprise such a universally recognizable symbol.

[theotherwaldo]

Yes, I'd carry it. Just as I'd carry or use Tokarevs, Makarovs, AK-47s, SKSs, Mausers, Lugers, and all those other weapons that are the trophies that commemorate the defeat of evil empires.

[alaskanativeson]

I must say, I think just about everything that could be said here has been said. Since it's just more of a vote than anything at this point, I'll add my thoughts to the fray.

A tool is a tool, it has no will of its own. However, there are other considerations. To say "It's just a tool. "Nuff said." just doesn't cut it.

Okay, you defended yourself in a COMPLETELY justifiable shooting. The DA isn't going to press any charges against you. However, the former Mr. Scumbag has a wife that is dying to get her hands on your house, your car, your 401K, and your son's new X Box 360. The new scumbag in her life (her greedy lawyer) is going to make sure she gets it. Having a swastika on the gun makes his job easier.

I don't have a problem with having the gun refinished and the Nazi proofs removed. There's plenty of Nazi history in museums, I don't see a problem with doing that. (This is coming from Social Studies teacher.)

[cowssurf]

I realize the bearer of the gun is the one who is evil, but I find Nazism so highly offensive, I would not carry a gun bearing its mark. Its mark is meant to evoke Nazism. I definitely find it offensive, and I have many Jewish friends who I would feel I would be betraying in a way. It would not feel right.

[Vern Humphrey]

a Makarov by itself does not constitute a recognizable symbol to most of the modern American public, whereas an eagle with a swastika placed in front of it may comprise such a universally recognizable symbol.
The jury will not see the eagle and swastika from clear across the room. The only way they'll notice it is if a lawyer points it out to them.

That same lawyer can also point out that a Makarov is the gun of the Evil Soviet Union.

[BlindJustice]

* The Nazis came to power in 1933 - all existing weapons in the German Army were rotated and nazi proofed including the WWI firearms.

* some have said the Nazi proofed BHP in question was Nazi made, well, the Nazis were very resourceful for in every country they took over if it had an arms manufacurer & factory, those craftsman weren't shipped off for
slave labor elsewhere they kept making the same firearms, with German overseers, and final acceptance weapons got the Nazi proof mark. THis happened in Belgium at FN for the BHP, in Spain with the Astra in Poland
with the Viz Radom, as well as Norway with the under license 1914 Norwegian variation on the 1911....as well as other countries - it made a complete mess of re-supply and who gets what ammo and maggazines but maybe that was a blessing for the ALlies. Sainz the designer who finished the BHP and gave it the double stack mag, which John M Browning didn't think it needed It was asked for by the French then they bailed on the buy, imagine that, so the Belgian army adopted it in 1935 as the rest of EUrope got more and more nervous about Germany as well as just getting with the program to adopt a semi-auto.

Randall - now I;ll go back and read on from page 4

[SeanSw]

The gun has no greater value, to the owner, with the markings in tact. It is of no historical significance. I would destroy the markings to avoid any potential conflict and be done with it. We choose tools based on merit, not philosophy.

[lance22]

Picture this: A slandering lawyer holding up the gun in court and making a "Ladies and Gentlemen" speech. And, imagine that slandering lawyer making that speech in front of his hand-picked jury.

A trial by jury is like a crap shoot. Which lawyer is going to do a better job of filling the chairs during the selection process? If we limit this discussion to pure logic then no it doesn't matter if you have a gun with n@zi markings or for that matter klan markings. But let's leave theory and think about reality.

[GEM]

The lawyer does not have to directly point out the markings. It can be made visible - subtly - by a blown up presenation in a PPT or by handing the gun to jury to examine.

Now, if your attorney objects by saying - Your Honor, I object to the gun being handed to jury because they will see the Nazi Markings or objects to the PPT as it will show the Nazi Markings - that's going to do you a lot of good.

If the Judge says: Ignore the Nazi markings - the jury will pay more attention to them - according to most research.

Given the cost of modern guns - I can get a used Glock 222 for $350 - would you rather spend $250 an hour on an expert criminologist, psychologist or whatever - who might be able to undo the gun effect?

[SuperNaut]

If you are at the point that a prosecutor is highlighting NAZI marking on your guns, then it won't matter if you were carrying the gun or if it was in your collection at home. At that point everything is being used against you including the websites you visit and the clubs to which you belong.

[Joe Demko]

So having one less thing that could be used against you isn't worth pursuing?
It may only be a tiny thing, but much of what happens in this world is a game of increments. Would you prefer to have tiny things accumulating against you or in your favor as you make your way through the legal system?
In the real world, things like shaving before you go to court are important enough that lawyers advise their clients in some detail about the importance of appearances. "Looking guilty" is a step toward being found guilty. Now, if you'd take the time to shave and dress so you look like a solid citizen before you go to court, what is the difficulty with understanding using a gun that doesn't undermine that image?

[SN13]

All you need to do is shoot a criminal who happens to be Jewish... then, you're up Sh*t Creek without a paddle and your boats on fire.

[SuperNaut]

So having one less thing that could be used against you isn't worth pursuing?

Joe, in the grand scheme of things, re-arranging your life around what might happen in court if you might hypothetically shoot a guy (i.e. never) based on what marking are on a firearm; is the weirdest, most unhealthy, most unproductive, thing I have ever read on THR.

You will get criticized for just having a gun
You will get criticized for the type of bullets
You will get criticized for you race
You will get criticized for the victim's race
You will get criticized for your political beliefs
You will get criticized for your religion (or lack thereof)
You will get criticized for where you hit
You will get criticized for where you missed
You will get criticized for how many bullets you were carrying
You will get criticized for what magazines you subscribe to
You will get criticized for what you have posted on gun-related websites
You will get criticized for your gun collection
You will get criticized for everything under the sun


So if one is really worried about this kind of stuff, then there are a TON of things in one's life that needs to change, this list barely scratches the surface. And if one changes their life for these things, then I feel really sad for them; I really do.

[Joe Demko]

The OP has at least one other gun suitable SD. Most of the people who say "carry it!" in this thread probably own bunches of guns. In this case, then, avoiding a potential problem just means switching to another suitable gun that is already on hand. Is that difficult? Is that, somehow, going to "stifle your personhood?"
See, self-defense IMO is a practical matter of defending my life and the way I live it. It isn't a political statement nor a philosophical one. It is balancing risks and expenditures to maximize my safety and personal freedom with the minimum possible risks and intrusions. In this case, eliminating a risk seems to me to be ludicrously simple and costs nothing.
The only thing in favor of Tribal carrying his Axis HP instead of his commercial model is that he said it feels better. What does that even mean in practical SD terms?

[SSN Vet]

personally .... as for me, no. not unless the nazi proof could be legally removed

outside of a history book, I will not have a swastika in my home.

[FEG]

personally .... as for me, no.

outside of a history book, I will not have a swastika in my home.


As someone who lost an entire branch of his family to the Nazis, I would not allow a swastika in my house, period. It has nothing to do with what anyone else thinks or doesn't think about it. I don't care.

I've never owned a German or Austrian made gun for similar reasons. There's no way I would ever buy a big ticket item like a car from Germany. Not happening.

[EOTechRulesAll]

My ancestors fought for a number of sides (ie- USA, Germany, Italy, etc) and I generally abstain from speaking out against either of those sides (I have a lot to say about the conduct of the UK, Canada, and the USSR during and after the war, and the conduct of US occupation forces in Germany AFTER the war, but I don't really fault the USA for how it fought the war, not being given over to the British style terror bombing which was nothing more than an atrocity and another war-crime in a large pile of war-crimes). All that aside...

However, I wouldn't carry such a weapon due to the simple fact that we live in a society where the authorities are looking to destroy any patriot over the slightest of causes. I'd surely own such a gun, but I wouldn't carry it as a self-defense weapon.

I do find it very ironic and quite hard to reconcile/come-to-terms-with, the idea that my Italian-American grand uncle could have taken one of his dozen + PPKs/Lugers/Walthers (he came back with a bag packed with guns and lots of gold daggers, swords, etc) from a dead German who was also an uncle, cousin, (some relation), etc to me. It seems odd, but stranger things have happened. Brother fought Brother in the War Between the States.


As for my family, well my grandmother loves the fact that I carry an Italian gun. She found it neat and interesting when she asked me about at a family lunch one day (I wear my gun at the weekly family lunch in my dad's hometown). I received more brownie points than my dad, who was carrying an Austrian gun.

[EOTechRulesAll]

If it was in a state to where a brand-new item was worth more than the Nazi-proofed model, I'd consider it, but only if it was damn near "perfect" for me--and that's just a consideration from the SD shooting scenario. If it wasn't worth a ton of money, and it was "the thing", then sure I'd do it. Let the PC guys worry about it later. If you were a member of racist groups or whatnot, then no, don't carry it.


That's all I'd need. They go in my house and start poking around, ask my what my Confederate flag is about, what my 1943 Italian flag is about, they'd probably first ask what the flag actually is, rather than what (if anything) it means, in regards to the 1928-1994 South African flag that is usually flying from my house. I like to collect flags, particularly those that have significance for my heritage and my family history, it's really that simple. But, that is to say it is simple for me, perhaps not so simple for PC-crazed prosecutors.

That's just one of the reasons I won't carry a pistol with nazi markings, but I do want to buy a Walther P38, a Luger (several models), and a Walther PP 32, at some point in time, as well as a K-98 Mauser.

[EOTechRulesAll]

Although no longer politically correct, taking enemy weapons as trophies is an ancient and honorable custom. Why should I not use a weapon taken from yesterday's enemy to deal with today's threat?


I agree entirely... If I do go into the USMC, one of the "perks" that I except (or perhaps rather "that I will observe") is the stuffing of pistols, magazines, helmets, uniforms, and anything that is not NFA/explosive, into bags, so that I can bring it back, from wherever I happen to be (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). I believe it is the right of a soldier to take what he wants in war (pertaining only to captured items from enemies that are items of personal property). If some dead enemy has a bayonet that catches your eye, then that bayonet is yours.

[hankdatank1362]

If I do go into the USMC, one of the "perks" that I except

Is that supposed to read "accept" or "expect"?

Also, I didn't think that any of the Armed forces let soldiers bring back weapons as trophies anymore. I could be wrong.

[EOTechRulesAll]

Hank- expect.

Sorry, it's been a long day/night. Only slept about four hours.


To my knowledge the ATF still has forms available for soldiers who want to import non-NFA firearms.

[FEG]

My ancestors fought for a number of sides (ie- USA, Germany, Italy, etc) and I generally abstain from speaking out against either of those sides (I have a lot to say about the conduct of the UK, Canada, and the USSR during and after the war, and the conduct of US occupation forces in Germany AFTER the war, but I don't really fault the USA for how it fought the war, not being given over to the British style terror bombing which was nothing more than an atrocity and another war-crime in a large pile of war-crimes). All that aside...

While I understand and appreciate your point (i.e. there is plenty of war guilt to go around), you have to admit that the insignia of the 8th Air Force is not universally considered a symbol of hate and genocide. OTOH, the swastika is that very symbol.

That said, I probably wouldn't wear the 8th Air Force insignia openly in Dresden, just for example.

[EOTechRulesAll]

I'd generally agree with that. I wouldn't hand somebody in Dresden a bomber jacket with 8th Air Force insignia and say "enjoy" any more than I'd hand a WW2 combat veteran a German pistol and say "enjoy" as it might hit too close to home and thus it would be insensitive. The sad thing is that few people in the USA even know where Dresden is, let alone what happened there.

Likewise, about 30% of British youth thought that Mussolini was a fictional character from an Italian movie...

[Arrogant Bastard]

1. It would be more valuable to me as a collector's piece. Even so, I might want to stamp "Never again!" in hebrew on it.

2. Wouldn't want the media circus if i had to use it.

[BullpupBen]

1. It would be more valuable to me as a collector's piece. Even so, I might want to stamp "Never again!" in hebrew on it.

2. Wouldn't want the media circus if i had to use it.

First off, I'm Jewish so my opinion on this is pretty biased.

Anyway, yeah I don't think I could stand not destroying a Nazi pistol unless I did something like what was suggested in #1, and I sure as hell wouldn't use it for serious purpose due to # 2 in the quotation.

A rifle on the other hand I would be very happy to own since K98's were the main weapon during the Israeli War of Independence in 1948. However, I would still have to carve out the swastikas and put a Star of David on there.

[daorhgih]

The question used "Nazi" as the gun. Would it be racist to use a Samurai sword in self-defense? (BTW, my autospell finds "NAZI" O.K. but has to go to manual for "Samurai".) Is it racist? Well, I am. I'll never buy a Jap car as long as there is an alternative, orunless the Japs apologize.

[GEM]

If the thread elicits folks proclaiming racist feelings then it's time to shut it down.

The points have been made - make your decision.

1. Ideological problems - take them or leave them
2. Practical problems later - if you don't believe in them, don't work about.

So that's it.

[kentucky bucky]

Are you kidding? I'd love to have an original WW2 piece. That doesn't make one a Nazi.

[Restorer]

I've owned one of these P-35s. The gun doesn't have "Nazi!" stamped on it. It has the S/N stamped on the slide and the receiver with the addition of the Wehrmacht eagle. That's it. There were 3 different grades made and a walking ton of them were the base model, like mine. The only collectible model is the one with the butt notched for a shoulder stock, with stock, and with adjustable sights.
Mine was a typical specimen, like his, with holster wear at the muzzle. The sight was indexed, so it had been issued to at least one user but not fired much. It was brought home by my uncle, a P-38 pilot. To my knowledge he didn't use it. When it came to me I had a pro check it for safety before I fired it.
Here's the thing; if you're set on using it for defense, don't skip that step. Most of these guns were made under occupation at the Herstal plant and quality control was sketchy. My barrel was an oddity. It was shiny, like new, no pitting but one land was almost invisible. We couldn't figure out how that could happen, but you had to hold so high and right to print paper that it wasn't practical to use for serious purposes.
I sold mine for $450 and have been told that was a pretty good deal for me. I bought something I could trust.
I agree that the gun has no ideology, regardless how heinous the regime. I wonder how many would condemn the ownership of a Nambu, given Japanese WWII treatment of Koreans and Chinese?

[FEG]

Let’s make this a very easy example. This is a hypothetical, so play along with me.

1. You are Jewish.
2. You are presented with a P-38 that you know, for a fact, was used by the Einsatzgruppen to execute Jews in the Ukraine.

What would your reaction be? Obviously, I wouldn’t want it, and I wouldn’t want it in my home. I think this is an “easy” example, because most people really would feel that way under those circumstances. I think we are all rational enough to understand that the pistol is an inanimate object, yet emotional enough to want no part of that one. Laugh if you want, but I think most people have some sort of metaphysical or spiritual belief deep down, and they wouldn’t be comfortable owning a pistol with that many bodies on it. An inanimate object can still be a symbol of evil.

The trick is where do you draw the line? There are a lot of Nazi proof-marked weapons that were never even issued, much less fired in the war.

[esq_stu]

"Nazi guns" were used by the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.Excellent point. My wife is a child of holocaust survivors and won't let me buy anything German. But that's the only thing she questions :p when I buy a new gun - "where was it made?"

My Mauser is Israeli, with the IDF crest, so it's OK.

I think your answer may be useful.

[buzz_knox]

There are some excellent points made here, and if you can't convice a bunch of gunnies that tool isn't inherently evil, you'll never convice a jury.

However, it's worth mentioning that every argument raised applies equally well to many other areas of self defense.

Will a jury consisting of anti-gunners look down on someone who carries an Ed Brown "Special Forces" model? How about a Colt Commando?

No, those aren't as universally loathed as the swastika, but the fact is we aren't discussing logical responses; we are discussing emotions, idiosyncrancies, and prejudices.

This is really a perfect example of El Tejon's Problem #2 situation, and the principle that whether or not something is a "righteous shoot" may be determined by factors other than the actions of the shooter and the "victim."

[GEM]

Well said. Folks aren't not alway rational when it comes to emotional issue.

I have a friend whose father won't eat Chinese food because he fought the Japanese in World War II. They are all Asians. :confused:

My uncle was at Pearl Harbor on 12/7/1941 and went through the Pacific as a pilot. He thought the Nagasaki bomb was unnecessary in retrospect.

Juries are weird creatures. It's just a simple matter of unncessary risk avoidance.

[iowajones]

Would you carry a Nazi marked gun?
Only if my grandfather took it off a dead nazi. Otherwise, probably not. For the same reason I would be honored to own a gun used by our boys in a war - for personal reasons, not for someone else to see.

[wheelgunslinger]

There are a lot of stories in historical oral and written tradition that relate taking up an enemy's arms to defend oneself when the enemy is vanquished.
The jews carrying the drowned egyptian's weapons from the shores of the red sea after their exodus comes to mind as relevant for this particular group of readers and writers.

There are also examples of a like behavior in other culture's traditions, including pre-roman Germany. The emphasis is always on the usefulness of the weapon as a tool of defense.

There are clearly cases where a weapon can be cleansed or purified ritually, as is evinced by native cultures here in the US adorning a recovered cavalry rifle to make it their own. Or Israeli soldiers pressing them into service as part of the defense of Israel.

The legal angle seems nonsensical since if you wind up in court over a shooting, you can be fried whether you use a Lorcin or a Historic Nazi marked High Power.
Is it giving them ammo? I don't think so. Not if you're smart enough to remind the jury of some basic history.
But, a jury is really never predictable so why worry over it. If you want to carry one, carry it.

[Archie]

Simply because there aren't that many Nazi marked handguns I would consider suitable for self-defense.

Lugers are interesting, but somewhat less than reliable under constant use conditions. The sights are hideous, the trigger pull ranges from 'almost managable' to 'downright wretched' and I personally find the caliber inadequate.

P-38 is a better design, but I don't like the controls. Trigger pull is 'nasty' and sights are 'nearly useful'. The ergonomics don't agree with my hands and I personally find the caliber inadequate.

The Walther PP and PPK follow the P-38. Most of them came in caliber .32 ACP; which obviously, I find inadequate.

There were a host of other 'second issue' pistols with Nazi markings, mostly in .32 caliber for non-combat officers and such. Again, not suitable.

Another pistol was the Astra 400 series in 9mm parabellum. Sights simply horrid, trigger pull worse and the same inadequate caliber. The only lure to this pistol is it is so ugly it has a perverse charm to it. And they were seriously overbuilt.

The Radom is similar. Poor sights, fair trigger, poor controls and an inadequate round. Good ergonomics, though.

The High Power. The most utile of all the Nazi marked fighting pistols, it suffers from only fair sights, a trigger pull that is spongey at best and caliber. Not to mention, I don't like the way it feels in my hands.

The truth is, if I had a Nazi marked pistol, it would probably be worth much more as a collector's item than a shooter. So I'd either put it in the collection or sell it off and buy something I liked better.

Would I be concerned about the markings? No. That sort of evil cannot touch me (or anyone else, for that matter.) I find an interesting philosophical quandry in that the Nazis should best be forgotten forever and at the same time, the evil thereof never forgotten.

[Bud Tugly]

IMO using a gun with Nazi markings for SD runs the risk of automatically associating you with the neo-Nazi/skinhead groups in the minds of the arresting officers, the DA, and the jury. FAR more people know about them and their agenda than know about the originals these days.

That could easily get a "hate crime" charge added on top of any others - especially if the "victim" happened to be black, Jewish, Hispanic, or any other sub-group that the neo-Nazis are openly opposed to. I can only imagine the media circus and protest marches against you if the shooting happened in a racially sensitive part of the country.

Proving a negative is a legalistic nightmare. Would you like to try to convince a jury that you AREN'T a racist if the other side was claiming you were and using the gun as evidence?

There's at least a fair chance that family members of a criminal may contain unsavory characters who would love to get their hands on everything you own, and they'd gladly use the court system to do so. Why give them anything that might strengthen their case?

[Poor East Texan]

As much because I imagine my Finnish M39 has "been there and done that" I like it QUITE a lot!

That said it is VERY unlikely I and it will ever be in a trial!

Nazi marks such as a Swastika are probably not the best thing to have on a PD gun....