Supressor for HD?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t use any of my suppressors for HD, while they do reduce noise and flash they do make a firearm longer and less maneuverable. Not to mention, even with all of the rounds I fire while defending my home (0 to date) my sight and hearing remain unaffected.
 
Most DA's will trip over themselves to handle a precedent setting case as a means to further their career.
Click to expand...


I got news for you. there is no precedent issue here. Is there a case of suppressed weapons being used for HD? Not that I know of. But for a case to be a precedent setting case, it needs to be addressing an issue that the law has not yet addressed. In this case, the ONLY applicable law, is murder and it's defenses (ie. self-defense).
That's it. The suppressor does not create a new legal issue. Precedent is only for new legal issues. If I defend myself by throwing a stapler at a guy and it hits him in the head and kills him, is there a new precedent there as well? No. Same old murder/self-defense rules apply.

What the suppressor WOULD do, is give the defense attorney a good trap. If the defense attorney is any good at all, he would rip into a prosecutor from all angles if the prosecutor decides to attack you for using a silencer. It would make the prosecutors case against you look weak, as though he couldn't get a conviction for murder based on facts and applicable law, so he's going for cheap shots instead.

Criminal trial law is my thing. I've seen this play out numerous times.
 
Some have brought up a very important point. A LEGAL owner of a suppressor has been fingerprinted & background checked, photographed & I.D.'d, recorded & filed, approved & reviewed by at least two government agencies. Wouldn't that look GOOD to a jury? Wouldn't make the home defender look even more legitimate and law abiding, or be a credit to his stability?
 
"
1) The HK employee who used an AC556 in self defense. This was in a car not the home. He eventually prevailed after a ton of legal expenses. The gun was taken into evidence and he spent a ton of money. HK covered his legal expenses by the way since they determined it was connected to his work in some fashion. I can't remember the exact details and I'm too lazy tonight to look it up "
it was becuase he was at the HK building (they have since moved). he fled the attackers for miles; then went to hk in hope of using the gate to get away from them...

i live in the area so the case is kind of famous around here (hk has since move twice but they are still 10miles away). ayoub (sp.) files had a write up on some time ago.
 
i drive past the building where it happened daily (now fairfax county criminal justice academy). just amazing that someone would chase a man that far then charge a full auto MG. kind of makes you think twice about carrying a 380 huh? do you think that would have stopped those bikers?
 
Get some of those electronic ear mufflers that amplify ambient sound, but block firearm-level noises. And then, on that fateful night when you must fire inside your home, right as you squeeze the trigger, shut your eyes (blink real hard), to try to maintain your night vision.
 
I got news for you. there is no precedent issue here. Is there a case of suppressed weapons being used for HD? Not that I know of. But for a case to be a precedent setting case, it needs to be addressing an issue that the law has not yet addressed. In this case, the ONLY applicable law, is murder and it's defenses (ie. self-defense).
That's it. The suppressor does not create a new legal issue. Precedent is only for new legal issues. If I defend myself by throwing a stapler at a guy and it hits him in the head and kills him, is there a new precedent there as well? No. Same old murder/self-defense rules apply.
Click to expand...

That was a much clearer way of saying what I was trying to get at.
 
Em how about making sure ya got a screw off kind and ya know screwing it off in the time between the bad guy hitting the floor and the cops showing up when you call 911? Would this be any different than unloading your gun? Would there be any way ballistically by looking at the bullet to tell it was fired thru a suppressor?

I don't own any suppressors, my current defensive weapon of choice would be a 12 gauge pump. Never seen a suppressor for one but my ear muffs are laying beside it so if there is time they will go on.
 
The suppressor is going to help protect your night vision and hearing should you have to fire a shot. I find these things important--especially if the perp brought a friend.

The prosecutor can cast you in whatever light he pleases. If it's a righteous shoot, it's a righteous shoot. I'd rather fight the issue in court than be shot by the invader's accomplice when I couldn't hear him.
 
i never saw a shotgun suppressor either; except in no country for old men !!
Click to expand...

They are common in the UK you should check out youtube on the subject.
 
Em how about making sure ya got a screw off kind and ya know screwing it off in the time between the bad guy hitting the floor and the cops showing up when you call 911? Would this be any different than unloading your gun? Would there be any way ballistically by looking at the bullet to tell it was fired thru a suppressor?
Click to expand...

Bad idea.

I don't think there is a way to tell by the bullet, but there may be a way to tell how far the bad guy was from the muzzle based on burnt power or other such CSI fancy stuff. The suppressor will throw that data off if they test your gun with your ammo, since a lot of that crap that normally expels out of the barrel stays in the suppressor.

Either tell the truth or keep your mouth shut. If it is a good shoot and you start lying, it may start to look like a bad shoot.
 
First, let me say that I have no experiance with NFA weapons whatsoever.

But, I would tend to think that ultimately the determining factor is going to be if it was a justified shooting. If you legally own a supressor there isn't any reason why you shouldn't be able to legally use it. The same argument against using supressors can be made against using a tactical m4 clone. A 16'' Ar-15 with 4 full length rails, a flat top reciever, a light, laser, Magpul stock and gip and foregrip, etc. can be painted as a "military assault rifle" or "police patrol rifle" by the prosecutor to depict you as being some kind of Rambo. See where I'm going with this? It doesn't matter what gun you use, the prosecutor is going to try to make you look bad; that's part of his job. Also, if your guns are legal and it was a justified shooting, I highly doubt that the type of weapon ( or accessory) you use is going to make much of a difference.
 
I use my suppressed MSAR for HD for the reasons others have listed, reduced concussion from fire in the enclosed space and almost zero muzzle flash

With the suppressor fitted my MSAR is about the same length as my 16" AR with the stock semi collapsed.
I have a tax stamp and my approved paperwork.
If it's a justified shooting then that's the end of it.

web.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top