Carrying NFA firearms

[Carl N. Brown]

Firearms to be carried as weapons should be on the emotional attachment level of issue duty military or police guns, and just as easily replaced if a self-defense weapon needs to be retained by authorities as evidence.

Carrying a curio or relic collectible, or an heirloom from a deceased relative, as a weapon makes no sense to me at all. The only appeal an NFA firearm would have to me would be as a collectible, not as a weapon. One problem I foresee is a typical non-gun juror looking at an NFA firearm as a "gangster weapon".

That said, there are people who do buy NFA firearms as self-defense weapons because a lot of them are practical weapons, while some are just range toys. The motive and circumstances are the only things that one should be judged on in self defense, but some jurisdictions have a history of questioning use of unusual weapons (read some of the amici curae and footnotes in the Heller and McDonald decisions).

 

[jmorris]

The only appeal an NFA firearm would have to me would be as a collectible, not as a weapon. One problem I foresee is a typical non-gun juror looking at an NFA firearm as a "gangster weapon".

The only NFA I would call collectible would be the FA stuff as numbers are limited. All of the others can be made at anytime with a stamp. As far a jurors go, they all know guns are evil so...

As I said above I have never used any firearm in a human defence capicity but if I ever had to I wouldn't worry about loosing "it". It would never happen but even if I had to use my great grand fathers side by side in SD I bet he wouldn't mind and if it happened to be what was handy neither would I.

 

[Flfiremedic]

With the POSSIBLE exception of the Beretta 93R, I can't think of a full auto small enough for daily carry that can be controlled well enough to truly do the job. For home defense, do you really want something that is often at its best as suppressive fire? For tac ops, yes they fire full auto while in "Press" mode, but is that realistic in a home?
Now in a long evolution event such as ground zero at Katrina or the current situation in Japan, I can see the usefulness of a full auto long gun in conjunciton with other weapons if neighbors teamed up for defense...just my thoughts...
BUT THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY...I STAYED AT A HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS

 

[doom]

I don't live in Arizona, but i've visited it enough to know that if crap did hit the fan (out down by the border) I would NOT want to be outgunned.

 

[Flfiremedic]

Fair enough...outdoor contacts in boarder areas would be an exception for autos, but even then, good fire discipline and accuracy would be more important to me...M4 or M1A in semi-auto or even an AK if you can get a decent one.

 

[Sam1911]

I would NOT want to be outgunned.

I wouldn't worry about out-gunned. One man with a select-fire rifle (and certainly with a sub-gun or even GPMG) isn't necessarily more deadly than a rifleman with a semi-auto carbine or rifle.

I'd worry about out-numbered, and/or surprised/ambushed.

But, at any rate, the point of the thread wasn't really about the value of full-autos, but the legality of carrying Title II weapons in general -- specifically Short Barreled Shotguns.

 

[MasterSergeantA]

I live in Arizona (and am glad I do, although the current fire is not pleasant) and we have an open carry and concealed carry right. I have a 12" Rem 870 AOW that straps up into a shoulder rig with a Glock on the off-side. If I throw a coat on, it is pretty well concealed (I'm 6'4", 250) and I carry it when I am up in the mountains behind my house because the border is very close. I also carry the AOW in my car when I travel although the Taurus Judge in a crossdraw holster is generally more accessible.

 

[JustinJ]

"Let's not bring anti-gun arguments or fear of LEO hassles into it. "

Maybe i'm misunderstanding what you were saying, Sam1911, but what is wrong with mentioning that there is a possiblity that carrying a weapon legally may result in problems with a LEO who is ignorant of the law? That seems perfectly plausible and a useful piece of information for the OP. The anti-gun arguements are of course another story.

 

[EmGeeGeorge]

How about this hypothetical...

If you use, say a registered machine gun in a self-defense shooting, and LE later charges you with manslaughter because it wasn't justified, I beleive that you could then be charged federally with use of a machine gun in a violent felony, which has like a 30 yr mandatory min sentence. There was a security contractor in Iraq who was tried(though aquitted I believe) who had a firearm legally (and mind you it was overseas too) but he was charged with manslaughter and had the above charge added.... Manslaughter wouldve bought him 3-8 years, but the use of a machine gun could add time I think?

So in a worst case SD scenerio it could mean more time if parties after the fact decide it was a "bad" shoot....

 

[Sam1911]

Maybe i'm misunderstanding what you were saying, Sam1911, but what is wrong with mentioning that there is a possiblity that carrying a weapon legally may result in problems with a LEO who is ignorant of the law?

The OP asked for specific legal stipulations against the practice. There is a tendency for folks to toss in lots of opinion -- generally worth a lot less than you paid for it -- about what they believe they should fear from the police or public opinion. That doesn't answer the question posed.

Or someone will post a "why would you want to?" response and claim that "because I can/want to/the law allows" is not reason enough for the purposes of the question -- leading to a who's-more-pro-2ndA argument.

None of that helps the OP answer his question which was about specific elements of the law that prohibit an act.

We tend to try to keep our discussions focused that way. If you know the answer, post. If you don't know the answer, don't speculate -- that's just noise. If you think there's something else that must be considered, go ahead and share it, but do so very thoughtfully so as not to hijack the actual intent of the thread.

 

[MasterSergeantA]

Nicely stated Sam.

BLUF...it is legal in Arizona to carry ANY weapon, open or concealed as long as you are legally allowed to own it. (No concealed low-yield nuclear devices, etc.) There are restrictions on where you may carry it...schools, federal reservations, bars, etc. but in public mostly no problem.