Do any members keep a dedicated suppressor on their primary home defense weapon?


PDA






mbdolfin
July 7, 2008, 11:17 AM
Do any members keep a dedicated suppressor on their primary home defense weapon?

If you enjoyed reading about "Do any members keep a dedicated suppressor on their primary home defense weapon?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
waterhouse
July 7, 2008, 11:36 AM
Primary? No, it's a 12 gauge.

I do have one on my bedside handgun.

Kind of Blued
July 7, 2008, 12:28 PM
No, but I would like one.

EHCRain10
July 7, 2008, 12:49 PM
What are the legal ramifications of using a suppressed weapon in home defense?

there are some great advantages to them but what are the disadvantages?

PTK
July 7, 2008, 12:52 PM
Yep, my AR-15 has a M4-1000 from AAC on it. If I have to fire that thing indoors at night, I'll still be able to see/hear afterward.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=81083&stc=1&d=1215446203



(The crowbar is for zombies.)

MGshaggy
July 7, 2008, 01:28 PM
What are the legal ramifications of using a suppressed weapon in home defense?

there are some great advantages to them but what are the disadvantages?

If its a good shoot, its a good shoot; doesn't matter if you use grandpop's old SxS 12 ga. or the latest and greatest, uber-tacticool, suppressed weapon. The tool used does not change the justification for using it, and once a response of deadly force is warranted, a suppressor does not make it any more deadly, or less justifiable, than an unsuppressed weapon. Keep in mind, however, that after the authorities arrive it will probably be taken as evidence and unceremoniously tossed around a police evidence locker until the legal dust has completely settled and you get it back weeks or months later.

The foregoing assumes, however, that everything is legal and properly registered, and there is no state law prohibitions on the possession or use of a suppressed weapon in such a situation.

PTK
July 7, 2008, 01:38 PM
The police can't easily keep a silencer as evidence, and if they do need to keep it for a while you KNOW you're getting it back - they CANNOT keep an NFA item registered in someone else's name indefinitely, where they can keep giving you the runaround on an ordinary title I firearm.

hexidismal
July 7, 2008, 01:56 PM
I most certainly would keep a dedicated suppressed weapon for home defense. I live in NY though.. so it's a no go.

Robert Hairless
July 7, 2008, 01:59 PM
What are the legal ramifications of using a suppressed weapon in home defense?

there are some great advantages to them but what are the disadvantages?

Free advice is seldom cheap.

PTK
July 7, 2008, 02:01 PM
My signature does tend to be apropos quite often, doesn't it? :D

chris in va
July 7, 2008, 02:07 PM
Wonder if they make supressors for an AK. Hmm.

psyopspec
July 7, 2008, 02:08 PM
What are the legal ramifications of using a suppressed weapon in home defense?

You'll be able to hear the prosecution's case against you. Seriously though, in a justifiable home defense shooting, you'd probably be fine if you lived in a state where they were legal.

bogie
July 7, 2008, 02:25 PM
I'm gonna stick one on my bedside .45 after they're okayed here in Missouri - I think that's in August.

geekWithA.45
July 7, 2008, 02:30 PM
Suppressed for home defense?

Sure, why not?

Why wake the kids?

ceetee
July 7, 2008, 02:33 PM
A hard-core nitpicker would claim that any alterations you make to the weapon taking it away from "bone-stock" could be used against you. An overzealous prosecutor could make the argument that adding the supressor shows you were more pre-disposed to violence, that it was your intent to use the weapon against human targets, rather than just paper targets. He could also argue that this pre-disposition led you to shoot, choosing the act of killing your opponent first, before opting for any other avenues, such as escape or "less-lethal" means of self defense.

Depending on the law where you live, that argument (as full of bull as it is) may have merit. Some jurisdictions still have "must retreat" clauses in their self-defense laws. Check with a good lawyer, and have all the legal ramifications explained out to you before firming up your home defense strategies.

Personally, where I live it would make no difference. If I didn't have a hard time coming up with the cash, I'd have a suppressor on all my weapons.

DoubleTapDrew
July 7, 2008, 02:34 PM
Seems like a SBR AR-15 with a can would be a great home defense weapon. Short, yet won't make your ears bleed if fired indoors. I've heard arguments about the prosecution painting you as a rambo-type person using a NFA item for home defense but not sure if that's ever happened.
PTK makes a good point about how the ATF might start breathing down the PD's neck if they tried to hold a NFA item registered to someone else for more than a short time. There have been stories of SOTs using full autos (and probably suppressors) justifiably in defense of their business or home. I don't see why it would be different for an individual.

Robert Hairless
July 7, 2008, 02:46 PM
My signature does tend to be apropos quite often, doesn't it?

:)

I suffered hearing loss while I was in the military at a time when ear protection was cigarette filters. So I'm very much in favor of suppressors as a sensible device.

But "sensible" rarely applies to the reactions of other people where guns and self defense are concerned. It's almost impossible to believe that anyone could be opposed to the concept of a human being wanting to live and be able to keep himself alive, or to keep his wife and children alive. Even so, there are a great many people--including otherwise nice Americans--who are repelled by the thought.

Some of those people, unfortunately, might be involved when you are inducted as raw material into the criminal justice system. Try telling them "It was a good shoot, and a good shoot is a good shoot, and let's go out for coffee while the biohazard guy cleans up the mess."

Although I think suppressors make darned good sense, in the minds of many people who watch movies they're associated with assassination. Any day that involves the need to defend one's life is, by definition, not a lucky day. When it goes that wrong why gamble on it suddenly going right?

MGshaggy
July 7, 2008, 03:12 PM
PTK - they can keep it so long as they need to for evidentiary purposes. If its a clean shoot and they're not going to file charges, that probably won't be very long, but how long does it take to put a nice ding, scrape, or scratch in your can or expensive NFA item? If they do need to keep it for longer, they can easily get a court order to temporarily transfer custody from the registered owner, tax-free, on a F5. Moreover, in a practical sense, who would file charges against the LE agency? I doubt the AUSA is going to take that one up as long as the agency can make a colorable claim its needed as evidence.

La Pistoletta
July 7, 2008, 03:18 PM
Ask the jury to stand next to an unsuppressed pistol or rifle being fired indoors, without ear protection.

They'll understand then.

Greywolf
July 7, 2008, 03:53 PM
I keep one on my SBR 9mm AR. Honestly, though, if I had to use it to defend the home I'd quickly take the suppressor off AFTER the shoot and put the flash hider on it.

The bad guy won't be able to say anything about the change, and no one in my neighborhood will be the wiser. I live in a concrete block home with good insulation, and my dogs bark very loud. No one here is a sound and ballistics expert, and I'll just say, "What? Could you speak louder?" to the cops when they ask me questions after the shoot.

taliv
July 7, 2008, 04:00 PM
i keep one on my AR15, which i keep by the bed.

removing the suppressor after the shooting seems like a galactically bad idea.

Jorg Nysgerrig
July 7, 2008, 04:05 PM
I'm with taliv on this one as far as removing the suppressor being a bad idea.

LiquidTension
July 7, 2008, 04:08 PM
Isn't that what QD mounts are for?

Afy
July 7, 2008, 04:14 PM
Worried about waking up the neighbours...:neener:

NeoSpud
July 7, 2008, 04:27 PM
MG- From what I've read, if you ever need to use your firearm in self-defense then you can pretty much guarantee that it'll be confiscated, and being the pessimist/realist that I am, I'm prepared to never see it again. That being said, if I ever have to surrender -perhaps permanently, in a worst case scenario- my handgun and suppressor, I would be somewhat upset, though at the same time I'd be glad that I could still hear.

I think it would be worth the risk of falling into a scenario that Robert Hairless describes. My hearing -and the hearing of anyone else in my small apartment- are worth that chance.

buzz_knox
July 7, 2008, 04:50 PM
I keep one on my SBR 9mm AR. Honestly, though, if I had to use it to defend the home I'd quickly take the suppressor off AFTER the shoot and put the flash hider on it.


This is an extraordinarily bad idea, especially since if you should ever happen to use said weapon (or any weapon), you've now admitted a willingness to tamper with evidence to give yourself a stronger case.

The internet isn't nearly as anonymous as people think it is.

Greywolf
July 7, 2008, 06:07 PM
I honestly don't see why it would be a bad idea to remove the suppressor after using the firearm. It is NOT something that the firearm has to have on it to function. It is like a sling, or magazine, or even a flashlight. It didn't make the firearm more deadly, or more effective. Hell, if I put in earplugs before I shot an intruder, are you saying I should not remove the earplugs until the police arrive, or remove my sling, or pop out the magazine?

Plus, how would they even know I used a suppresor in the first place?

PTK
July 7, 2008, 08:55 PM
Greywolf

Removing the silencer and not saying a word about it would be tampering with evidence and could well take you from the legal shoot territory straight to the prison for concealing the facts. Bad idea.

As for those that are insisting that I'd be worse off in the jury's eyes for using a silencer - my hearing and the advantage that it provides, along with my night vision, is worth that risk. In the astoundingly small chance my home gets broken into while I'm here, I want every single advantage I can get - including protecting my hearing and vision.

Of course, here in Colorado silencers aren't exactly abnormal to see at the range. :)


...or pop out the magazine?

My gun is staying loaded and in my hands for any other threats until the bronze arrives. ;)

Greywolf
July 7, 2008, 09:28 PM
Good points, PTK - hopefully it will never happen to me. But if it does, I'll keep the can on just in case. Don't want trouble with the po-po, and I have other guns with suppressors just in case they confiscate my 9mm.

PTK
July 7, 2008, 09:39 PM
I figure my AR-15 and silencer combined, I have $1500 or so into it. That's a SMALL price to pay for not losing most of my hearing, and they'd probably be returned quickly, as well. :)

RickH
July 7, 2008, 10:49 PM
I'd like to, but in my state they are only legal to own. They are illegal to use. I'd have to drive the miscreant to Oregon or Idaho to shoot him with a firearm that is equipped with a suppressor. :fire:

Conqueror
July 7, 2008, 11:28 PM
I do. This lives in my nightstand:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd224/paintballplayer700/Guns/IMGP0278.jpg

Sebastian the Ibis
July 8, 2008, 12:10 AM
I am sure that a lot less people do now that DC allows the use of firearms in self-defense.:evil:

jrfoxx
July 8, 2008, 01:04 AM
I dont currently, but in the future when I can afford it, I do plan to get a short (10.5" or so) barrel form my bushmaster M4, and a good suppressor.Not just for the benefits HD, but also because I just want to, and would like to test out the whole suppressor and SBR thing, and that seems like a good platform to kill 2 birds with one stone, and being an AR where uppers swap fast, I am not permanatly altering another gun, if it turns out suppressors and short barrels arent for me. Currently, I have a Mossberg 590 extended tube w/ghost rings as a primary HD gun when sleeping, but the M4 is always ready to go, and usually it, or my 1911 is next to (or on) me when awake and downstairs, so I dont really have a dedicated HD gun per say, but if the M4 with SB and suppressor worked out, I may get rid of the Mossberg, seeing as how I have plenty of other shotguns for sport/hunting (or HD if needed), and it may become unnessecary/redundant wit hthe SB, supressed M4 (again, depending on the results).

right now though, I dont have the kind of money needed for a new upper (short barrel), the can, and the $400 B.S tax.I expect those items to end up costing more than the whole gun and all its accessories combined did, so it may be a while.

RancidSumo
July 8, 2008, 01:06 AM
Seems like a bad idea. Imagine what people would think on a jury if you shot someone with a silencer.

Macpherson
July 8, 2008, 01:50 AM
Greywolf's question piqued my curiousity. How would the PD know that you removed the silencer before they arrived? Would the wound ballistics on the BG be different by using a silencer? I would think barring a CSI sweep of your house (not likely), there would be no way to tell. Having a threaded barrel proves nothing, as obviously they would know you have a silencer but how would they prove it was on the gun at the time? Cops are not omniscient...

Wopasaurus
July 8, 2008, 02:07 AM
(The crowbar is for zombies.)

It works well for headcrabs too.

PTK
July 8, 2008, 02:09 AM
Macpherson

Tampering with evidence can turn an otherwise legal shooting (no such thing as a GOOD one) into a very bad time for the owner if discovered.

justin 561
July 8, 2008, 02:12 AM
I don't, but when they start making suppressors for 12GA's, let me know!

Edit: When the suppressor, actually does its job.

PTK
July 8, 2008, 02:14 AM
Justin

They make silencers for 12ga. I hope this helps. :)

justin 561
July 8, 2008, 02:22 AM
Ones that would be effective, not just a waste of money. Do they make a suppressor-able 12 ga shell?

M203Sniper
July 8, 2008, 02:32 AM
Quote:
(The crowbar is for zombies.)

It works well for head crabs too.

Preaching to the choir, brother.

http://www.videogamey.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/crowbar-halflife.jpg

Zoogster
July 8, 2008, 03:04 AM
What are the legal ramifications of using a suppressed weapon in home defense?

there are some great advantages to them but what are the disadvantages?

Many and numerous. The first is that if for some reason or another everything does not get decided in your favor (can happen even when you are completely justified) it gets the NFA item used in a crime federal enhancement option.
That can often be many more years than the charge itself, like if the thing the court finds you guilty of is only worth 2-3 years. You could end up doing a long term sentence because the jury finds you guilty of some minor 'compromise' charge.


Further the supressor reduces accurate details provided to forensics. Details that could help to validate your case in court. Powder burns, gunshot residue patterns etc would all be effected by the can containing most of them and directing some in different directions.
It could be harder to verify the range the shot was fired form for example.

Suppressors are great, and should be removed from the NFA. They are a safety device that protects hearing.
However currently they are something not percieved as normal because of the restrictions in our society and the Hollywood influence of them as truly silent assassin weapons.
That will effect the image in court of thier use.
Going through the extra steps to have one, and then using it could be used to show you as a more calculating killer.

Even valid legal use of machineguns in self defense usualy results in a trial rather than a no bill from the grand jury. It is possible other NFA items could have a similar effect.

The reduced flash allowing follow up shots in low light conditions, the reduced muzzle blast, and the lower noise would be of great benefit to defensive use in the home though.

taliv
July 8, 2008, 11:00 AM
greywolf and macphereson

do a search for massad ayoob's posts from a year ago or so on "gunshot residue" or maybe "gun shot residue". i think it's GSR mostly, but you can't search on a three-letter term.

consider that it is used to determine how far away you were from the assailant when you shot her.

picture a scenario like this: attacker is 5' away when you shoot. however, your suppressor dramatically reduces the amount of GSR on their clothing etc around the wound of the recently deceased. but you removed the suppressor so to the cops it looks like you were 20' away.

MGshaggy
July 8, 2008, 11:00 AM
Even valid legal use of machineguns in self defense usualy results in a trial rather than a no bill from the grand jury.

Can you provide a cite or reference to such a case? As far as I'm aware, the number of times a legal & registered MG has been used in a SD situation can be counted on one hand, and those I know of were not within the confines of the home making the claim of SD somewhat more questionable than if it had. Even dismissing the particular facts of each case, it seems far too small a sample to draw any conclusions as to how it is 'usually' handled by a prosecutor or grand jury. I think the powder residue issue you raise is a fair point - that the use of a can may eliminate residue which could be exculpatory evidence. OTOH, if there's no residue (or not enough to show anything) I think it would necessarily tend to place more weight on the other remainingn evidence, namely testimony by the parties involved. And if one was carried away by the coroner, his side of the story may be a bit...lacking.

ctdonath
July 8, 2008, 11:11 AM
Yes, have an AAC Omni attached. When setting off a shortie AR indoors with hot loads, having one seems pretty vital.

How would the PD know that you removed the silencer before they arrived?
They have a team of professional forensic analysts with a well-funded research/investigation laboratory at their disposal, unlimited time to analyze the heck out of anything, and aggregate hundreds of years of experience in figuring out the nuances of what happend. They can make or break you on a single scratch or molecule.

They - forensics, cops, investigators, and judges included - are professional lie detectors.

You have thought about the question for ten seconds.

As said before: messing with evidence at a crime scene is a galactically bad idea.

FWIW: Many/most suppressors are attached via adaptors or threads which are a dead giveaway that the owner intends a suppressor be attached. You could swap the can for a flash hider, but under the circumstances that would likely take a non-trivial effort at a time that you're not going to be thinking calmly, rationally, and coherently.

Zoogster
July 8, 2008, 11:33 AM
Can you provide a cite or reference to such a case? As far as I'm aware, the number of times a legal & registered MG has been used in a SD situation can be counted on one hand, and those I know of were not within the confines of the home making the claim of SD somewhat more questionable than if it had.

You are right, the number of cases is too small to be making general statements, and not clear cut home dfense situations.
Still...



How would the PD know that you removed the silencer before they arrived?
They would likely know. They would at least know things were not adding up, and might think you were lying about something else.
They also might think you actualy shot the person from further away and were covering that up for some reason. That is because they would not find the proper powder distribution of a non silenced firearm near where it was fired.
In a duty to retreat state that could lead to problems. Especialy if it happened outside. You could defend yourself at fairly close range but the evidence would suggest you were actualy further away than you really were because they think you had no suppressor on the firearm when you did. So they are not finding powder and burn marks contained by the can where they should be if you fired where you say you did.

If it later came out that you did in fact have a suppressor on, they would wonder why you hid that fact, and it could cause them to distrust all your true testimony. It is not something you legitimately could have forgotten, and it would be clear you covered it up intentionaly.

jackdanson
July 8, 2008, 11:46 AM
A hard-core nitpicker would claim that any alterations you make to the weapon taking it away from "bone-stock" could be used against you. An overzealous prosecutor could make the argument that adding the supressor shows you were more pre-disposed to violence, that it was your intent to use the weapon against human targets, rather than just paper targets. He could also argue that this pre-disposition led you to shoot, choosing the act of killing your opponent first, before opting for any other avenues, such as escape or "less-lethal" means of self defense.

Yeah, to the uninitiated a surpressor=illegal, you'd have to be crazy to own, you are looking for trouble. If a defense shooting went to trial it would not look good at all to a jury to have supressor on your weapon.

Joe Demko
July 8, 2008, 11:58 AM
I've been present twice, without hearing protection, when guns were discharged indoors; both were negligent discharges. One was a Federal .357 magnum 125 grain hollowpoint load fired from a S&W 686 with a 4 inch barrel. The other was a Cor-Bon 9mm load, I don't know which specifically, fired from a Glock 17.

I believe you guys are really overstating how bad the noise is in such a situation. It was startling, but it wasn't overwhelming and didn't leave me with ringing ears in either case. This is because, I believe, homes have a lot of sound absorbing surfaces. You have carpeting on the floor, drapes on the windows, large pieces of upholstered furniture around the room, ceilings often made of fibrous tiles, and so on.

The shots in both cases actually sounded oddly muffled. The 9mm was discharged in an apartment and none of the neighbors even noticed. I don't know anything about triggering off shotguns or AR-15's indoors, but I'm reasonably certain that you don't need a silencer to remain functional if you have to use a handgun.

La Pistoletta
July 8, 2008, 12:02 PM
Joe, hearing damage isn't that predictable. Sometimes people get injured for life by a single incident, which is what happened to me. On the other hand, the drummer of Iron Maiden has been playing live for 30 years without plugs, is over 50 years old and still hears well and has no tinnitus.

One should definately assume that one incident can give life long problems. I know that personally I'd rather take a broadsword through my stomach than stand next to an unsuppressed gun being fired indoors without protection.

Old School
July 8, 2008, 01:13 PM
"I know that personally I'd rather take a broadsword through my stomach than stand next to an unsuppressed gun being fired indoors without protection."

Yikes!
I have had a 357 make my ears ring loudly after just one shot and that was outdoors. However, I will pass on the broadsword trade.

La Pistoletta
July 8, 2008, 01:27 PM
I take it you haven't experienced hyperacusis. I wasn't born with it so I know the difference. Ordinary sounds are loud, loud sounds become unbelievable. Hard to explain...it's a physical shock that feels like it could have the power to stop one's heart.

Even a broken bone or trampling through a nail is still "just" pain. The other thing is pure physical horror. It may sound a bit melodramatic but as I said, it's hard to explain.

Kind of Blued
July 8, 2008, 07:56 PM
Greywolf's question piqued my curiousity. How would the PD know that you removed the silencer before they arrived? Would the wound ballistics on the BG be different by using a silencer? I would think barring a CSI sweep of your house (not likely), there would be no way to tell. Having a threaded barrel proves nothing, as obviously they would know you have a silencer but how would they prove it was on the gun at the time? Cops are not omniscient...

The question isn't "How would the police know", it is "How are you 100% sure that they won't find out about the suppressor?"

If it is decided that the gun will be taken as evidence, it is likely that they will ask "Is this the exact gun that was fired configured exactly like it is now?"

At this point you would have to "come out" and try to explain why you removed the suppressor, which a jury WILL find out about. A jury will also hear everything you say in this period of intense interogation in which I'd bet just about everything you say will be 'not what [you] meant'.

The other option is to lie about the suppressor and hope one of the dozen officers sniffing around your home doesn't come across a slightly warm suppressor tucked away somewhere.

Considering the number of avenues you could go down by removing the suppressor, I don't see an obvious way to, for lack of a better phrase, get away with it. 'No harm, no foul' doesn't apply in court.

jrfoxx
July 9, 2008, 04:59 AM
They have a team of professional forensic analysts with a well-funded research/investigation laboratory at their disposal, unlimited time to analyze the heck out of anything, and aggregate hundreds of years of experience in figuring out the nuances of what happend. They can make or break you on a single scratch or molecule.


The following is NOT at all me disputing anything about the whole deal of removing a suppressor after a SD shooting, or how a suppressor will look to a jury.My question is does anyone know if the the type of investigative techniques in the quote is typically done in most shootings, especially ones where the fact that it was a homeowner who shot someone in his house, at night, who was a person he clearly didnt know? Or is all that CSI type stuuf usually reserved for cases where there is no immediate suspect/shooter known, or the type of gun isnt known, or things look to be VERY different from what is being told, etc? Seems like GSR tests, trajectory tests, etc would be VERY expensive and time consuming to do as a standard practice for all or even most shootings, and would bog down the system so bad as to really screw the system up.

Maybe it's its faster, easier and cheaper than I think, and it is standard practice when there is even the tiniest doubt of what happened, or if there is to be a trial, I wouldnt know. I have no police, foresnsic, investigative, legal, etc background at all, so I'm just curious about how that type of thing works, if anyone here has legitimate knowledge of that kind of thing.

Like I said, not disputing ANYTHING about whether having a suppressor on a HD gun is a good or bad idea, or how it will affect things, or if removing it aftre a shooting is good or bad, or any of that. Just wondering if they really would even know, or try to find out, unless there was already something about the shooting that didnt seem to be right.

That said, I tend to lean towards the idea that if you have a can on a SD gun, and get involved in a shooting, it's likely best nt to remove it, as if they do somehow find out, it may be considered evidence tampering, or at least may have a negative effect on your credibility, etc.

buzz_knox
July 9, 2008, 09:24 AM
How far they will go will depend on how far they want to go. If the autopsy (routine in such cases) reveals an abnormal powder signature (due to a suppressor) when you claimed you fired when he was right on you, they'll expend the resources to resolve that "dilemma" (at this point, also known as a suspicious homicide). If the investigating officer thinks you lied at any point (such as when you hesitated when he asked if you are leaving anything out), he'll want to know what you are lying about.

Conqueror
July 12, 2008, 10:31 PM
I have actually tested this before, let me dig up the photo...

The following piece of paper was shot at the indicated ranges with a Ruger Mk3 .22 pistol, with a 4.5" threaded PacLite barrel. On the left is unsuppressed; on the right is with a Liberty Suppressors "Sparrowhawk" silencer which measures 6" long by 1" diameter.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd224/paintballplayer700/IMGP0381.jpg

A silencer will most definitely change GSR deposition patterns IF IF IF you are close enough for there to BE any GSR deposition. Even with an unsuppressed gun there is little GSR on the shootee beyond a few feet away. And I don't think they routinely test for GSR in self-defense shootings.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do any members keep a dedicated suppressor on their primary home defense weapon?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!