NFA Firearms for home defense?


PDA






AZ
June 19, 2011, 05:08 PM
Would it be legal to use a machine gun, SBR, SBS or a suppressed firearm for home defense. Never mind whether or not it would be advisable, would it be legal? (Of course taking into account that all other BATF laws were followed)

If you enjoyed reading about "NFA Firearms for home defense?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CowardlyHero
June 19, 2011, 05:24 PM
Sorry to not answer the legal side but I have to add, do you really want the police to take your nfa item(s) for evidence?

dprice3844444
June 19, 2011, 05:27 PM
short shotgun works best 18 inches.usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters

rocky branch
June 19, 2011, 05:41 PM
I have a tripod mounted 1917 watercooled coveringing access to the drawbridge across the moat.
Keep hoping for my big chance.

jawn
June 19, 2011, 05:46 PM
I think suppressed firearms are a great idea for home defense. I know a lot of us keep firearms close by, but how many of us keep ear protection close by? It'd be good to be able to hear your family, or the cops whenever they show up.

And my understanding of the law (your locale may vary) is that if it's a legal shoot, it's a legal shoot.

Telekinesis
June 19, 2011, 05:51 PM
I believe it would be legal, but highly inadvisable. For example, if you are found guilty of any "crime of violence" at all, you would face mandatory additional sentences from between 10 and 30 years depending on which NFA item you used.

18 U.S.C. ß 924(c)(1) (http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf)

I think if its a good shoot, it is a good shoot no matter what weapon you used. The only difference is you have much more to loose if anything is questionable about the SD incident.

Ron James
June 19, 2011, 06:11 PM
Legal yes, under the legal code, Under the civil code no. The Castle doctrine does not protect you from an " excessive force " law suit. Many people think that the " Castle Doctrine "protects them from a lawsuit, NOT TRUE! it only protects you from legal charges. You can walk away from a shooting with no charges, and then lose every thing you own in a civil suit. I don't know if this is right or wrong, but it is the way it is. And as already been stated, if you shoot someone with a machine gun or any automatic weapon, you had better make sure you have done every thing right, the slightest error on your part will bring a Grand Jury Bill by an over zealous DA. Remember that old saying, a good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted.

kingpin008
June 19, 2011, 07:15 PM
usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters

Based on what research? (TV & action movies don't count, btw)

In reality, racking a shotgun to scare off an attacker is a poor defensive choice. It not only requires an attacker to be close enough to actually hear the gun being racked, but it also requires them to be in a clear enough state of mind to understand what it means and subsequently give a crap. It's also a great way to give away your location to other bad guys that may or may not be lurking in the vicinity waiting to come at you.

kwelz
June 19, 2011, 11:04 PM
usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters

Worst advice ever.

My HD gun is a 11.5 inch Ar with an AAC M4-1000. Much more effective than a Shotgun.

cbrgator
June 19, 2011, 11:22 PM
It's perfectly legal to use an NFA firearm for home defense. But, as others have said, its highly inadvisable. This is one of those can but shouldn't situations.

bkjeffrey
June 20, 2011, 03:01 AM
NFA Firearms for home defense?

Not this guy.....

ObsidianOne
June 20, 2011, 04:16 AM
short shotgun works best 18 inches.usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters
Or loosen them.

I think you others are taking him a little too literally, I think he's trying to say, in addition to an 18" barreled shotgun, there's a scare effect involved.

forindooruseonly
June 20, 2011, 08:37 AM
Never for me.

1. The Cost. We have too much money tied up in NFA items to give the authorities even the slightest pretense to confiscate them. A confiscated suppressor will cost you anywhere from several hundred dollars to over a thousand, but if you starting getting MGs confiscated, well we know what happens there. There is no way I want to tie up those assets in a long, drawn out investigation.

2. The Lawsuit. If I opened up with a subgun on an armed intruder, I'll probably not be charged criminally, but I can bet dimes to donut holes that I'll be facing a civil lawsuit from the family of the intruder. Ever been sued? Not fun, even when you win.

3. The Image. The last thing NFA owners need is a ton of bad press from someone who uses an NFA item in a shooting - justified or not. I can just see MSNBC or CNN sending down a crack investigative journalist to make sure that the facts don't come out and the sensationalism ramps up to the moon about those horrible destructive devices, machine guns and the "silencers" that kill people without even a whisper and whoever uses one probably didn't even warn the "victim" - in quotes because that is how the criminal will be protrayed, and how people who own NFA items are just nuts waiting to jump on the chance to use them on the unsuspecting public.

4. Effectiveness. There is nothing I can do with any of my Title II weapons that I can't with my Title I weapons. A 14 inch shotgun isn't going to offer an advantage over my 18 inch shotgun, and while MGs are probably awesome to have in combat, I don't need to spray bullets all over the house. I believe home defense is more of a precision job where control and shot placement rule. It is a limited engagement. The case for suppressors about saving your hearing is IMO flawed. There is probably a benefit to using a suppressor for HD, but I feel the negative attention it will bring will outweigh that tiny bit of hearing loss I'll sustain in a couple of shots in a HD scenario. If my ears ring for a few days, well I'll chalk it up to a life experience and move on.

This, as with all my ramblings, is my .02 cents, and the reasons I won't use any of our NFA items in a HD scenario. Do what you will, just please make sure you think about it before using them, cause it will have a larger effect upon all NFA owners if it occurs.

ny32182
June 20, 2011, 10:40 AM
I wouldn't use a MG for several reasons: 1) I don't have one, 2) in my limited experience with them, I can't hit the broad side of a barn with one, and 3) The cost really is such that it doesn't make any sense to use one and get it taken as evidence when there are more effective alternatives for 1/10th the price.

SBR or suppressor, I would have no issues. If I had a can I would probably use it. My hearing is far more valuable to me than the cost of a suppressor. An ~11" rifle could have a real improvement in manuverability vs. a 16", and only costs $200 more. 200 bucks, and/or the value of any non-MG weapon used in a home defense shooting is going to be the absolute least of your problems in the aftermath of such an event.

Maverick223
June 20, 2011, 11:43 AM
I wouldn't use a MG for several reasons: 1) I don't have one, 2) in my limited experience with them, I can't hit the broad side of a barn with one, and 3) The cost really is such that it doesn't make any sense to use one and get it taken as evidence when there are more effective alternatives for 1/10th the price.

SBR or suppressor, I would have no issues. If I had a can I would probably use it. My hearing is far more valuable to me than the cost of a suppressor. An ~11" rifle could have a real improvement in manuverability vs. a 16", and only costs $200 more. 200 bucks, and/or the value of any non-MG weapon used in a home defense shooting is going to be the absolute least of your problems in the aftermath of such an event.^That. FWIW, I have plans to add a sound moderator to my "nightstand gun"...hearing comes in handy from time to time.

:)

texas bulldog
June 20, 2011, 01:02 PM
Lots of misinformation in this thread. Let's start with this one:

Legal yes, under the legal code, Under the civil code no. The Castle doctrine does not protect you from an " excessive force " law suit. Many people think that the " Castle Doctrine "protects them from a lawsuit, NOT TRUE! it only protects you from legal charges. You can walk away from a shooting with no charges, and then lose every thing you own in a civil suit. I don't know if this is right or wrong, but it is the way it is. And as already been stated, if you shoot someone with a machine gun or any automatic weapon, you had better make sure you have done every thing right, the slightest error on your part will bring a Grand Jury Bill by an over zealous DA. Remember that old saying, a good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted.

I don't know about your state, but in Texas, this is 100% wrong. Castle Doctrine here does, in fact, protect you from civil liability resulting from shooting an intruder.

fulltanghalo
June 20, 2011, 01:23 PM
Same here in Florida.

"776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant."

FIVETWOSEVEN
June 20, 2011, 01:48 PM
Gary Fadden used a AC 556 to kill someone charging at him with two knives, it took a few years and $60,000 dollars to prove it was all legal. He himself said that if he used a Remington Wingmaster he would have gone home the night of the shooting.

Maverick223
June 20, 2011, 02:11 PM
I don't know about your state, but in Texas, this is 100% wrong. Castle Doctrine here does, in fact, protect you from civil liability resulting from shooting an intruder.Didn't in NC...until about a week ago, when our representatives passed a stronger Castle Doctrine [happy dance]. :D

Ron James
June 20, 2011, 07:59 PM
I know what people think they know about the castle doctrine, but the facts remain, the courts can not restrict a wrongful death lawsuit. I'm not going to get into a debate about it. but just talk to a lawyer about it. It is a play on words that sounds nice. If you shoot a armed ( or unarmed here in AZ ) unauthorized intruder or trespasser, No, under ordinary circumstances you can not be sued in a civil suit, but if it is a wrongful death, ( excessive force, victim was a meter reader etc: ) the courts CANNOT legislate nor forbid against a civil suit. Law of the land, talk to a criminal lawyer or better yet attend a few trials. that will open your eyes and clear your sinuses in a hurry.:o Vaya con Dios, I'm out of here.

Aaron Baker
June 20, 2011, 08:58 PM
It is a play on words that sounds nice. If you shoot a armed ( or unarmed here in AZ ) unauthorized intruder or trespasser, No, under ordinary circumstances you can not be sued in a civil suit, but if it is a wrongful death, ( excessive force, victim was a meter reader etc: ) the courts CANNOT legislate nor forbid against a civil suit.

I don't think anyone said they could. What you're saying doesn't have any relationship with whether it's a good idea to use an NFA firearm in a home defense situation. What you're saying is that castle doctrine protects you from a civil lawsuit resulting from a "good shoot," while not shielding you if it's a bad shoot.

I think almost everyone is in agreement that using a fully automatic weapon for home defense is bad STRATEGY, not to mention a bad idea from a legal standpoint. You don't need to "spray" bullets in a home defense situation, ergo you shouldn't.

But that still leaves short barrel shotguns and rifles, as well as suppressors, on the table. Nothing about using a shorter barrel equals excessive force in the way that unloading a submachine gun would. And the evidence shows that rifles and shotguns are superior to handguns for home defense (despite what "common knowledge" people might have to the contrary). If you have a shorter barrel, it's easier to wield inside a house, and a suppressor obviously protects your ears.

So how does using a shorter barrel or a hearing protection device equal the sort of "excessive force" that makes a good shoot into a bad shoot?

It seems like people on the internet worry a lot about these things. How much evidence is there, though, to back up the idea that NFA items expose you to so much legal liability that they aren't worth using despite their benefits in a home defense situation?

The only example I ever see listed is the guy that protected his truck (not home, mind you) from armed attackers and used a machine gun. And while he might wish he'd used a semi-auto in retrospect, there's no guarantee that the legal fight would have been any shorter. And most importantly, he effectively defended himself and did not get injured.

That's the bottom line for me: if I have to kill another human being in self defense in my home, I will be happy to endure any amount of legal wrangling after the fact. I already take as a given that killing a person is a life-changing experience, and I will simply be happy to have survived.

Ya'll are welcome to use FMJ bullets in your grandpappy's old revolver to defend your homes, just so that you don't run the risk of being involved in some after-the-fact legal wrangling by a zealous prosecutor or the grieving family of some drug-addicted ne'er-do-well.

Me? I'm gonna use hollowpoints in my AR15 SBR with a can hanging off the end if that's what I think will provide the best outcome for the immediate threat of an intruder in my home. I'll worry about the fallout afterwards, when I've got time to be thankful I'm not dead.

Aaron

Maverick223
June 20, 2011, 10:51 PM
So how does using a shorter barrel or a hearing protection device equal the sort of "excessive force" that makes a good shoot into a bad shoot?It doesn't in any way that I can think of. That said, I don't believe in "excessive force" either...not when an assailant enters my house. Even if I did, I don't see how a 9mm sub-machine gun would be any more excessive than a round of 12Ga. 000B Magnum...but I'm not likely to be on the jury, so I'd refrain from FA weapons anyway.

I value my hearing, so suppressors seem like a good idea.

:)

MagnumDweeb
June 20, 2011, 11:10 PM
I think a suppressor would not be too big a deal, can't say whether or not it is legal and won't. My argument for a suppressed pistol would be that it aided my ability to handle the firearm under stress and help me not fire more shots than necessary, possibly saving the life of my attacker. Granted I wouldn't rush towards the sound of an invader, I'd wait and let them force my bedroom door open. Otherwise they can take my POG living room TV that I'll get replaced with my renter's insurance along with repairing the damages. I'm sure though they'd bleed to death from my two pit/lab mixes taking chunks out of them. And yes I have a "Bad Dog" sign on my front door and garage.

Sebastian the Ibis
June 21, 2011, 12:37 AM
MG - hell no.

SBS/SBR - why not

Suppressor - hearing is good.

DD - No, I don't want to blow up my house with the BG.

devilstalker
June 23, 2011, 07:10 PM
Irrelevant, so because of all the things everyone else has said about the negative it would not be adviseable.

As for using a can to "save your hearing"... also irrelevant. There is a precious few that have been in combat situations where they shot someone. Those that have know that there is this thing called auditory occlusion. I have been in a few and by grace am saved, but each one had one thing in common, the shots sounded like I had hearing pro on. Your body is incredibly stressed in a situation like that and as a defense mechanism your ears have a way of protecting themselves. I only noticed this audirory occlusion fade when overseas in drawn out firefights, some that lasted for days.

Obviously a home invasion will be over quickly, even if there are five to ten intruders (if there are that many, you might want to look into who hired a wet team to come get you;)

Anyways, dont worry about your hearing. The can would help keep your position concealed, but in a HD situation that will not likely be a consideration anyways, ESPECIALLY if you have kids you are trying to get to and protect, screw cloak and dagger, you need to get to them fast and kill anything in your way (carefully).

Just thought I would add my 2c about the auditory occlusion, no one else has mentioned it.

Be safe:)

NOLAEMT
June 23, 2011, 07:34 PM
Auditory Exclusion, is a phenomenon that applies to the APPARENT lack of noise or hearing imparement that occurs when you fire a gun in a stressfull situation.

The damage to your auditory nerve and the cillia in your ear still occours

Aaron Baker
June 23, 2011, 07:38 PM
As for using a can to "save your hearing"... also irrelevant.

Reference this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=64963

Your brain, under stress, may allow you to ignore the sound of a gunshot, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't done the physical damage to your hearing. The parts of your body that are damaged by loud noises aren't part of your brain--they're part of your ear, and they can be severely damaged whether you notice the gunshot or not.

Silencers/suppressors SAVE your hearing. Period. If you can afford to have them, you're obviously encouraged to use them at the range, etc, to protect your hearing. They will also protect your hearing if you ever have to use your gun inside your house.

It's not an issue of whether suppressors save your hearing. They do.

It's an issue of whether saving your hearing is worth the potential hassles of the aftermath of a self-defense shooting using a suppressor.

Let me put it this way: logic tells me that if you're not required to announce your presence before opening fire on home intruders, then you're not required to have loud gunshots either.

Aaron

Cosmoline
June 23, 2011, 08:07 PM
Legal yes, under the legal code, Under the civil code no. The Castle doctrine does not protect you from an " excessive force " law suit.

There isn't really a tort of "excessive force." But the issue might come up if you have a high rate of bullets from a full auto. The argument would be that your first round stopped the act and neutralized the threat, so the rest of the rounds were not justified.

In any case, the possibility of losing your NFA weapon is enough to keep it from ever being used for self defense unless aliens attack.

Your body is incredibly stressed in a situation like that and as a defense mechanism your ears have a way of protecting themselves.

Alas, no. It would be very cool if humans had little muscles that closed off the precious ear structures from such noise but they do not. The failure to register very loud shots is MENTAL and is caused by the stress and the extreme level of noise. Your ears are still getting 100% of the damage.

But I agree you should be prepared to lose some hearing if it comes to shooting someone. A silenced weapon, whether we like it or not, is going to be seen as an assassin's weapon even by most gun owners on the jury.

devilstalker
June 23, 2011, 10:44 PM
I guess it makes sense that your ears take damage even if you dont notice it, I wasnt speaking from medical expertise but rather personal experience. I have been in several situations requiring me to fire w/o hearing pro and as stated, never noticed the noise as painful. I have also notice no loss in hearing, and I get regular physical exams to include hearing tests. My hearing has not gotten any worse, but that does not mean that it is probably true that your ears still sustain some form of damage from hearing a gunshot.

I guess what I would say is if the ONLY reason you would use a can is to save your hearing, its not nearly enough of a reason. My earlier argument was meant to serve as a relief of that concern... I have been shot at and have shot back with out hearing pro, both indoors and out, and with both handgun cal and rifle. Never "hurt" my ears in the moment, and despite taking inherant damage to my ears from it, never lost any hearing permanently. If you plan on needing to shoot in HD situations alot, consider two things: using a can on your pistol/ar and changing careers:)

Midwest Doc
June 24, 2011, 08:31 AM
short shotgun works best 18 inches.usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters
I have a Serbu Super Shorty based on the 870. Even though it only holds 2 rounds, it is easily and very quickly reloaded.

Flfiremedic
June 24, 2011, 09:39 AM
With my second mortgage I purchased an RPG for home defense, with my third mortgage I put an attorney on retainer...no idea why...I am defending myself, the castle docterine will protect me :)
Seriously the more common and benign ammo and weapon you can use for home defense you better for defending yourself in court, both criminal and civil.

Maverick223
June 24, 2011, 10:55 AM
Seriously the more common and benign ammo and weapon you can use for home defense you better for defending yourself in court, both criminal and civil.Very true. This is one of the reasons that I have always liked a 20Ga. "Coach-Gun" for a HD long gun (the other, of course, being effectiveness).

:)

jmorris
June 24, 2011, 11:47 AM
In any case, the possibility of losing your NFA weapon is enough to keep it from ever being used for self defense unless aliens attack.

Except for full auto toys most NFA "firearms" cost less than a nice over/under.

Not that I have used them (or any firearm for defense) but if I did, loosing them wouldn't be at the top of the list of things to worry about.

Prince Yamato
June 24, 2011, 03:45 PM
Except for expensive curios and destructive devices, why not? A round is a round, regardless of what type of gun it came out of and how loudly it came out of said gun. I think a gun owner being afraid to use a certain weapon because it looks scary lends credence to the anti's views.

JR47
June 24, 2011, 05:23 PM
This is an exercise in futility. "Excessive force" because you hit them multiple times? Then, wouldn't emptying you magazine, or cylinder represent the same thing? That has been beaten to death as a reason for prosecution.

Don't we think that the family of the intruder will sue in civil court just as readily is he was killed by a .22 revolver as a Model 1918A2 BAR?

Yes, the gun will likely be taken for evidence. If that's this important, then I guess that all the owners on here who sing about their Wilson Combat, Baer, and Brown 1911s are going to use a Lorcin for self-defense?

A gun is a gun in the eyes of the law. A cartridge is like-wise a cartridge. Surely, under the circumstances listed in these pages, the use of a .44 Magnum would incite a call for "excessive force". Much less the .454 Casull that is the hunter's Only firearm.

merlinfire
June 26, 2011, 08:26 PM
I can easily agree that at close quarters, a SBS or SBR can be more advantageous. It will also be used against you in the civil case, and possibly, a criminal case.

HankB
June 26, 2011, 10:02 PM
Just as a matter of interest, unless there's a baffle strike, will ballistic testing of recovered bullets give any indication of whether or not a suppressor was actually attached to the firearm when the bad guy(s) were shot?

relentlessknives.com
June 26, 2011, 10:40 PM
Wow what a thread.....no high jack here, but really someone enters your house with intent you seriously harm you....and the courts are what we worry about. Strange but true.
So what does that say about our peers....as well as the people who represent and protect us.
An old man once told me , that back when he was a kid they used to hang horse thieves. Then the bad people took over and they stopped doing that. Why, because it just wouldn't be right to hang their own relatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_Bulger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom


I vote for swords. At close quarters the sword may be more effective than the gun,
it's not real noisy and in some places the paper work to own one is less expensive.

The point being....well you decide.

Telekinesis
June 26, 2011, 10:49 PM
Just as a matter of interest, unless there's a baffle strike, will ballistic testing of recovered bullets give any indication of whether or not a suppressor was actually attached to the firearm when the bad guy(s) were shot?

I don't see how it would reveal if a suppressor was used (absent a baffle strike or maybe use of wipes), but you would have to explain why no one heard the gun shots...

Maverick223
June 26, 2011, 11:40 PM
Just as a matter of interest, unless there's a baffle strike, will ballistic testing of recovered bullets give any indication of whether or not a suppressor was actually attached to the firearm when the bad guy(s) were shot?No way to tell, and doubtful even with a baffle strike (using good quality expanding/fragmenting ammunition).

I vote for swords. At close quarters the sword may be more effective than the gun,
it's not real noisy and in some places the paper work to own one is less expensive.Ever hear of bringing a knife (albeit a big one) to a gunfight? There's a reason that no modern, respectable military force issues a combat sword (whether expecting CQB or not), when many issue pistols, bullpups, carbines, and shotguns. ...just sayin'. ;)

relentlessknives.com
June 26, 2011, 11:47 PM
Ever hear of bringing a knife (albeit a big one) to a gunfight? There's a reason that no modern, respectable military force issues a combat sword (whether expecting CQB or not), when many issue pistols, bullpups, carbines, and shotguns. ...just sayin'.

Ha Ha I agree, but also feel that shooting the bad guy with a silenced machine gun is just as good as shooting him with a single shot .22

Or if it's not that way...it should be. The point being that if someone enters your house without your permission to murder rape and rob you, who the hell should care what you used to dispatch the rascal

GunSafari
June 27, 2011, 10:50 PM
I think those who own pricey NFA weapons keep them tucked away in safes while not in use.

For an intruder in a regular sized home a simple handgun or shotgun is all you should really need, not sure why anyone would want to use a long rifle inside a small home, especially an automatic!

Now outside or during warfare are 2 completely different scenarios...

kwelz
June 27, 2011, 11:10 PM
So much wrong with this post.

I think those who own pricey NFA weapons keep them tucked away in safes while not in use.

A gun in a safe is useless. And NFA is not that pricy except full auto which is artificially inflated

For an intruder in a regular sized home a simple handgun or shotgun is all you should really need, not sure why anyone would want to use a long rifle inside a small home, especially an automatic!

This has been covered time and time again. Not only is a Rifle a better man stopper than any pistol but it has been shown that 5.56 rounds(when using the right bullet) have LESS penetration through wallboard than a handgun. And a shotgun lack the ability to do quick followups. And most of this topic has been about SBRs and Suppressors

Now outside or during warfare are 2 completely different scenarios...
True. but that doesn't mean that a weapon effective for one is not effective for the other.

Maverick223
June 28, 2011, 12:37 AM
^I disagree with both statements regarding long guns. The long-gun is far superior, but the scattergun is very useful despite slow follow-up shots, as it affords a one-shot stop percentage that is unsurpassed. That isn't to say that a rifle isn't effective, or that there is no place for pistols (they tend to be easier to grab in a hurry), just that neither the rifle nor shotgun should be overlooked for sheer effectiveness in stopping threats.

:)

GunSafari
June 28, 2011, 12:39 AM
Of course a rifle is a better man stopper, but going around corners and in a tight setting like a home (narrow halls/blind corners), someone who doesn't have some type of training would probably be better off with a handgun or a point & pull shotgun.

Back to the NFA thing. Any automatic would be a bad idea but a SBS would be pretty handy, and a SBR in proper hands only downside is losing that weapon for a decent period of time. It sucks with any weapon but doubly for something you waited to get approval for and paid an extra few hundred dollars to have.

A suppressor you could probably got off clean using, just make sure to take it off immediately after and it won't get confiscated, they won't know any better if you don't tell them and it won't really matter to their investigation if you used a suppressor or not, if anything it'll turn you from the victim to a maniac with a silencer, plus just think if you did tell them the nasty headline in the local newspaper if media coverage were to occur.

strambo
June 28, 2011, 01:14 AM
a SBR in proper hands only downside is losing that weapon for a decent period of time. It sucks with any weapon but doubly for something you waited to get approval for and paid an extra few hundred dollars to have.
Counter-point: odds are one will not have to fight armed home invaders. What are the odds of it happening twice?

So, given the above; why not have the best HD weapon you can? (if that is a 10.5" AR-15 with a suppressor, so be it)

Then, if you have to use it, against all odds, and it gets confiscated into evidence, so be it. Now, fall back to the trusty 870 (whatever) for the astronomical chance of home invasion #2.

I'd rather have the best tool for the job in my hands when I need it than in the safe, choosing a "lesser" option based on secondary concerns.

That said, I'm just suggesting "food for thought" not saying an SBR or suppressor is "best" for HD. That is another debate, I just question why anyone wouldn't choose to use what they think is the best weapon they have available.

pjlaw1
June 28, 2011, 02:36 AM
Well some suppressors are pretty solid. And since they are classified as weapons alone. You could just smack someone over the head with one. That would be pretty silent.

No but really I have a SBR AR with M4000. The M4-2000 gets taken off and put away.

HankB
June 28, 2011, 09:09 PM
I don't see how it would reveal if a suppressor was used (absent a baffle strike or maybe use of wipes), but you would have to explain why no one heard the gun shots... If it's a defensive shooting in your house, why in the world would you try to explain ANYTHING that SOMEONE ELSE did or didn't hear? The less you say, the better . . .

Jim K
June 29, 2011, 12:09 AM
The only case I know of recently where an auto weapon was used for self defense was in the H&K-USA parking lot, by an H&K employee Some fuss, but some very high priced lawyers got involved and there were no charges.

In theory, the type of weapon used should have no bearing on the legitimacy of the shooting. Even if the weapon is illegal, that means a charge for possession of an illegal weapon; it does not alter the facts of the self defense.

As a practical matter....

Jim

Johnny_Come_Lately
July 3, 2011, 08:50 PM
I would suggest thinking of things in a different way.

Am I going to jump off a cliff just because I can? Seems to me I should give careful consideration to what I do, because as previously posted, sometimes my actions speak far louder and with greater repercussions than I ever intended.

Just because I have the right to free speech, do I really want to call my neighbor an a..h...e? After all, he is still my neighbor.

Just because I hold a FFL and have paid dearly for my toys, do I want the BATF getting involved in what is a good shoot? Even though the DA may not prosecute me, now that the feds are involved, they may choose to prosecute me on a violation of someoneís civil rights.

Certainly I could use a FA Kalashnikov to deal with an intruder, but how many bullets am I going to put through my son or daughterís bedroom wall in the process? Kind of like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

TANSTAAFL means There Ainít No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. In other words, there is an opportunity cost to everything and the more exotic it is, the costlier it is.

Aaron Baker
July 3, 2011, 11:59 PM
do I want the BATF getting involved in what is a good shoot?

Why would the ATF be involved? We're talking about legally owned NFA firearms. How does their use in this fashion come into a federal agency's jurisdiction?

And what do civil rights have to do with it?

Aaron

Maverick223
July 4, 2011, 01:35 AM
Am I going to jump off a cliff just because I can? Seems to me I should give careful consideration to what I do, because as previously posted, sometimes my actions speak far louder and with greater repercussions than I ever intended.Because using a NFA firearm for defense has a great deal to do with jumping off a cliff? :scrutiny:

Just because I have the right to free speech, do I really want to call my neighbor an a..h...e? After all, he is still my neighbor.Again, how does that pertain to the subject?

Johnny_Come_Lately
July 4, 2011, 04:14 AM
Again, how does that pertain to the subject?

Just because I can do something, does it really make sense to do it?

Maverick223
July 4, 2011, 11:26 AM
Just because I can do something, does it really make sense to do it?How exactly is protecting yourself, your family, and your home with an NFA item (or any other) akin to jumping off a cliff and slandering your neighbor?

Sam1911
July 4, 2011, 11:51 AM
A suppressor you could probably got off clean using, just make sure to take it off immediately after and it won't get confiscated, they won't know any better if you don't tell them and it won't really matter to their investigation if you used a suppressor or not,

This is an EXTREMELY bad idea. You would be removing/disturbing evidence at a crime scene, and, should the investigation progress to the point of collecting various kinds of trace evidence from the scene, that evidence will not match your story once the can is taken out of your testimony.

Using a silencer may or may not lead to difficulty with prosecutors. Screwing around and playing games with the evidence WILL hurt you. Nothing says "guilt" like some evidence technician turning to an investigator and saying, "Wait a minute, this doesn't add up...he's hiding something..."

Sam1911
July 4, 2011, 12:03 PM
Just because I can do something, does it really make sense to do it?
Well, that's really the question, isn't it? If you're imagining someone defending their home with an MG-42 set up on a tripod in the hallway, I'd probably agree that it doesn't make much sense, and the circumstances of that shooting are going to, rightfully, be investigated with extra scrutiny.

But regarding more common NFA items, what are the benefits? What are the costs?

I, personally, see very -- very -- little benefit in using almost any full-auto weapon for home defense. It just isn't necessary. It isn't better than a common shotgun or a handgun that you are proficient with. (Unless, of course, it is actually THE weapon that you practice with most and are most proficient with. I don't know many (any) shooters who can honestly say that.)

(By that I mean, I can meet or exceed the cyclic rate of some submachine guns with a service sidearm, and put every round into the "A" zone of a target at common defensive distances. Switching to a submachine gun wouldn't improve that -- even if all other things were equal, which they obviously really aren't.)

SBR, SBS? I see no detriment and some concrete benefits to using a shorter long-gun -- again, if I've practiced with it a lot and use it as well as any other defensive arm. There is no possible way for a prosecutor to claim I've recklessly endangered anyone with it MORESO than if I'd used a standard-length arm of similar design.

Silencers would seem to just make sense. "I use this device because it protects my hearing. I leave it installed on my weapon(s) at all times. It was on the weapon when I retrieved it upon hearing the door to my house being kicked in, etc." Again, only benefits, no detriments.

If a prosecutor wants to bring up the "evilness" of your NFA-regulated items as a significant point in your trial, I'd imagine any defense attorney worth his fee would be able to hand him his butt for wasting the court's time with such an obvious non-issue.

Johnny_Come_Lately
July 4, 2011, 03:07 PM
On most points I agree with you Sam. If fact, the intent of my post was to simply imply that instead of making a decision base on a theory of I will because I can, I'm suggesting that one makes a decision based on a careful consideration of the circumstances.

I also agree that a silencer can be used to protect ones hearing and the hearing of one's loved ones from the sound of a round, or multiple rounds, being fired in an enclosed environment. However, when doing so one assumes that the average individual on the jury is going to see it that way as opposed to excessive force.

That being said, anytime someone shoots someone, be it justified or not, they must be prepared for the scurtiny of others and the outcome thereof.

In no way however, am I saying don't exercise you inherent right to bear arms to protect yourself, your property or your loved ones.

Sam1911
July 4, 2011, 07:10 PM
so one assumes that the average individual on the jury is going to see it that way as opposed to excessive force.Under what conditions would a jury be deciding that you used "excessive" force?

If you are involved in a self-defense shooting, you must claim an "affirmative defense" of self-defense. Meaning you are saying, "yes, I shot this man, and I had to because it appeared to me that he had the ability, opportunity, and intent to kill me (or commit one or more of several forcible felonies upon me or another) and I believed that he would carry out that intent if I didn't shoot right then."

You're already admitting to homicide (or at the least, ADW). There really isn't a higher standard of "excessive" force than that. You can only kill someone "so" dead. The killing is either justified by your claim of necessity, or it isn't.

If your force did not needlessly endanger innocents/bystanders (and it would be quite hard, I'd think, to convince someone that adding a silencer to a firearm made it more lethal) how is the burden of proof of necessity any higher?

Are you saying that the use of a silencer or SBR/SBS might call your claim of necessity into question? I can think of one or two scenarios where that might be plausible. Say, for example, you shot someone, but you had the time and the coolness of mind to stop and thread your silencer onto the gun before pulling the trigger. A jury might be convinced that that was time and opportunity you could have been using to flee or otherwise de-escalate the situation. In other words, maybe you didn't really have to shoot that guy.

However, in the example testimony I invented in the prior post, that wouldn't be the case. ("I leave it installed on my weapon(s) at all times. It was on the weapon when I retrieved it...")

Johnny_Come_Lately
July 4, 2011, 08:17 PM
Are you saying that the use of a silencer or SBR/SBS might call your claim of necessity into question?

That is exactly what I am saying.

Please do not misunderstand me as I strongly believe we have the right to among other things, defend our lives, the lives of our loved ones and our property up to and including using deadly force if need be. But, as it has been posted numerous times in the thread, if involved in a shooting, to say that one is going to be looked at with a microscope is an understatement. Therefore, perception becomes an issue. As a result, my home defense plan takes that into consideration.

For that reason alone, I am very hesitant to do anything that, even though I can justify it, may cause the balance of justice as seen by someone who is deciding whether to bring charges against me, to tip, even ever so slightly, against me. With these things in mind, I feel that I can adequately provide home defense without the need for NFA items. Itís unfortunate to feel as such, but it is a product of the world in which we live.

Of course, this is my decision for my situation and I have to be able to live with it. On the other hand, everyone else has to make they own decision and be prepared to live with that decision and the repercussions thereof.

telomerase
July 4, 2011, 10:04 PM
Could be. But it's much more likely that if you don't use a silencer you'll get more confused and be unable to hear important things like "honey it's me don't shoot".

Maverick223
July 4, 2011, 10:08 PM
Please do not misunderstand me as I strongly believe we have the right to among other things, defend our lives, the lives of our loved ones and our property up to and including using deadly force if need be. But, as it has been posted numerous times in the thread, if involved in a shooting, to say that one is going to be looked at with a microscope is an understatement. Therefore, perception becomes an issue. As a result, my home defense plan takes that into consideration.

For that reason alone, I am very hesitant to do anything that, even though I can justify it, may cause the balance of justice as seen by someone who is deciding whether to bring charges against me, to tip, even ever so slightly, against me. With these things in mind, I feel that I can adequately provide home defense without the need for NFA items. It’s unfortunate to feel as such, but it is a product of the world in which we live.I don't believe your chosen analogies were good choices, and I don't entirely agree with your logic (at least WRT the use of sound moderators and short bbl'd long arms), but I see where you are coming from.

:)

Johnny_Come_Lately
July 4, 2011, 10:15 PM
I don't believe your chosen analogies were good choices

I would agree with you.

:o

short bbl'd

I would also agree that compact weapons are much better than long ones due to moving around corners, clearing objects, etc...

devilstalker
July 5, 2011, 03:39 AM
There is always the option, if the AR platform is your choice (I have one in my room), to go with a pistol setup. I mean of course using a standard (not piston driven) pistol lower with a short, say 7", upper. The buffer tube locks into your shoulder just like a buttstock, just a bit lower than normally desired forcing you to drop your head a bit to the optic as opposed to raising the optic to your head, not a big adjustment to make. That makes a mean HD ar setup as the super short bble aids greatly in the tight cqb environment.

I agree with the others who said throwing a suppressor on wont hurt anything, and it will help in some aspects, but it may hurt in others. That loud bang coming out of your shorty AR will send 99% of any other baddies that were not shot running.

Its also, on the other hand, valid to use a suppressor to conserve hearing, but as to the whole concentration thing, I dont think its relevant. You know when you are gonna shoot and your mind is prepared for it. If there is a firefight of sorts, and bad guy(s) are not using cans, their fire will be what interferes with your concentration. For the few that have been in firefights, there is just as much psychological warefare going on as physical, and if the baddy hears BOOM BOOM from his gun and pff pff from yours, he may likely think he is being shot at with a pellet gun. Your BOOM BOOM will cause his head to drop. That is a truth applied to basic squad attack drills in any conventional infantry untit, the support element provides cover fire for the assault element to gain a flank... that wouldnt work at all if the support element was using cans...

Im not disagreeing with the pros of using a silencer for HD, just pointing out the cons of using one from an operational perspective as no one else has seemed to as of yet. Who cares if the legal begals have issues with it... as someone already said, killing someone is killing them, whether its a suppressed .22 pistol, your bare hands, or a .50 BMG (the latter not recommended for HD unless a tank is forcing its way through your door:)

4v50 Gary
July 5, 2011, 01:00 PM
In a life or death situation, use anything from a pointy stick to selective fire weapons to defend oneself, one's family and one's home. Surviving the encounter is a must. That said, remember that there is a thing called collateral damage, civil liability and the fact that the police will confiscate any weapon used in the shooting and won't return it until the shooter is cleared of criminal wrongdoing.

armoredman
July 5, 2011, 01:36 PM
This is what Arizona is doing, http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/scr1020s.htm&Session_ID=102

Excerpt, 31. Damages for death or personal injuries
Section 31. No law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person, EXCEPT THAT A CRIME VICTIM IS NOT SUBJECT TO A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BY A PERSON WHO IS HARMED WHILE THE PERSON IS ATTEMPTING TO ENGAGE IN, ENGAGING IN OR FLEEING AFTER HAVING ENGAGED IN OR ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT IS CLASSIFIED AS A FELONY OFFENSE
6. Recovery of damages for injuries
Section 6. The right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation, EXCEPT THAT A CRIME VICTIM IS NOT SUBJECT TO A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BY A PERSON WHO IS HARMED WHILE THE PERSON IS ATTEMPTING TO ENGAGE IN, ENGAGING IN OR FLEEING AFTER HAVING ENGAGED IN OR ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT IS CLASSIFIED AS A FELONY OFFENSE
Capitalized are the projected changes going on the ballot, Constitutional amendment.

If you enjoyed reading about "NFA Firearms for home defense?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!