NFA Firearms for home defense?

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?

short shotgun works best 18 inches.usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters

I have a tripod mounted 1917 watercooled coveringing access to the drawbridge across the moat.
Keep hoping for my big chance.

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.

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. § 924(c)(1)

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.

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.

usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters

Click to expand...

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.

usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters

Click to expand...

Worst advice ever.

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

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.

NFA Firearms for home defense?

Click to expand...

Not this guy.....

dprice3844444 said:

short shotgun works best 18 inches.usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

^That. FWIW, I have plans to add a sound moderator to my "nightstand gun"...hearing comes in handy from time to time.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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."

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Didn't in NC...until about a week ago, when our representatives passed a stronger Castle Doctrine [happy dance].

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. Vaya con Dios, I'm out of here.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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