Legality of self defense using a homemade 80% weapon

[Blackbeard 44]

here in Washington state they banned the sale of 80% polymer glock kits, as of 7-1-19 it is illegal to have them shipped into the state, and I know a few people that have and ccw them

I was curious if they could face more scrutiny if a situation came about and they used a homemade gun to defend themselves

I recently purchased a brand new carry pistol just so I could have it properly registered to myself in the case that if something did happen I can be as legit as possible and hopefully not face additional scrutiny

whats the thoughts on this subject from the people with more legal experience?

I just think an unregistered-homemade weapon is going to raise more questions to answer than having something thats registered to you

 

[Ohen Cepel]

My thoughts (not a lawyer) are that a good shoot is a good shoot; bad shoot is bad. If questionable and you have an 80% frame with skulls carved into it and a barrel with a slogan against the person you used it against then things may turn against you in a questionable situation.

I am not going to carry an 80% frame as I value my life and the life of my family enough to carry something tested better than that, also pros/machines did the work rather than I.

Not hating on the 80% movement and I get it, but its not for me.

 

[Hypnogator]

I am not going to carry an 80% frame as I value my life and the life of my family enough to carry something tested better than that, also pros/machines did the work rather than I.

My thoughts on the matter exactly. Way back in the day, I carried handloads in my 9mm and .45ACP carry guns, because the only commercial choices were hardball or ineffective JHPs that were little better. With the vast improvements in defensive ammo available this century, I carry nothing but top quality factory ammo (Federal HST, if you must know) because nothing I can load would be as effective or reliable.

 

[GAF]

Does Washington grandfather gun`s made from 80% receivers?

 

[.455_Hunter]

Seems to me that using an 80% gun for home defense kind of defeats the purpose of having the 80% gun.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Let's see, there are a few things here:

1) Are 80% guns reliable? Well, that depends on who did the finishing work on them. There are tons of threads on another forum dedicated to 80% guns that are absolutely full of people that can't get their guns to run. There are also lots of guys who have absolutely reliable guns. I have about 3k rounds through my Poly 80 Glock 26 without a single flaw. If you aren't mechanically minded or don't like following directions precisely, don't carry a gun you built. If you are, there isn't a problem with it. Also, be aware of tolerance stacking when you get creative with 3rd party parts. The larger the number of companies you have parts from, the greater the chance some of those parts won't work well together.

2) Could there be possible increased legal issues with using one? Well, sure, if you coat it in Punisher skulls and engrave "I hope you die" on the slide. But then again, if you do that to a factory gun, you will likely run into the same issues. If you build it with OEM parts then you shouldn't have any more problems than those normally associated with using a gun. Sure, it's the prosecutions job to cast you in a bad light and bring up things like you built your own gun, but unless you've done something spectacularly silly to it, those claims won't gain much traction.

3) Why? Because. Specifically because there isn't a firearms manufacturer out there that offers an off the shelf gun configured how I wanted. At least that's the why for my carry gun. There may or may not be a few more non serialized ones sitting around somewhere that aren't publicly acknowledged.

4) Will they hold up to long term use? Several commercially manufactured firearms are actually built on 80% lowers, so they seem to be betting on them holding up.

Also:

I just think an unregistered-homemade weapon is going to raise more questions to answer than having something thats registered to you

I don't have a single gun registered to me, home made or not.

 

[Frank Ettin]

My thoughts (not a lawyer) are that a good shoot is a good shoot; ...

I was wondering how long it would be before someone posted that meaningly cliche in this thread, and you obliged right at the start.

Why is it a meaningless cliche? Because you don't have the final say on whether it's a good shoot.

Whether your intentional act of violence against another human was justified so as to excuse you from criminal liability will be decided by the police, and the prosecutor, and perhaps a grand jury, and if you're really unlucky the jury at your trial. And anything about the incident, including the tool you used, could influence that decision. It's not a "good shoot" until those folks who get to decide the question say so.

Maybe it will hurt you, or maybe not. But it won't help.

 

[F-111 John]

Your question was the legality of using an 80% lower in a self defensive shooting.

Assuming that possession of the firearm created from the 80% lower is legal in your state, there is no legal significance to the firearm used when determining if a shooting was justified or not justified.

However, if you do go to court, the fact that you made your own weapon may be used to bias the jury against you in determining if the shooting was justified or not. Prosecutors are looking for convictions, and will get them in any legal way they can.

If you have Punisher grips on your 1911, that can be used against you. If you have "You're F*cked" on the dust cover of your AR, that can be used against you. If you used "extra deadly Black Talon" cartridges, that could be used against you.

How successfully any of these are used against you would only be known on a case-by-case basis. What is the makeup of your jury? How convincing is the evidence that your life was in danger and that you shot in self defense?

Your question cannot be answered until a specific case is brought before a specific jury and argued by a specific prosecutor.

 

[Dibbs]

IMO, (IANAL) if you used an 80% part to make a gun, and you are not allowed, or don't qualify, by the laws in your area,
to have a gun, it would not go well for you. No one in their right mind will tell you it's in any way right, or OK, to circumvent the laws
of you locality, state, or country, on an internet firearms forum. Basically, if you can't purchase a firearm, at a store, over the counter,
with an FFL, and a 4473, and a call-in, you are begging for trouble, using a firearm for any purpose, whatsoever.

Everybody wants to treat 80% receivers like they are a panacea, but if you hack the finish job, you're now holding a POS.
Even if it functions, there will be accuracy or feed issues, unless you do everything just right, and don't slip, or get careless.

That all said, IF you are already a gun owner, and you choose to defend yourself with an 80% lower, nitpickers could pursue this
in court, as much as they might pursue handloaded or other types of ammunition. Once again, opinion, but if they choose to do so, they
either have a weak case against you, or you are in a jurisdiction which takes a dim view of firearms ownership, in the first place.

 

[Rule3]

Has there been an actual case involving this?

Seems like it is the same or an analogy of using 80% hand loaded ammo. (The brass, Powder, bullet and primer are factory( the reloader just put it together). Now if the re loader cast his own bullet would that change the scenario?

 

[edwardware]

I was curious if they could face more scrutiny if a situation came about and they used a homemade gun to defend themselves

I don't think it's possible that you really don't know the answer too that question. If you really don't know, your naivete is unbounded.

Behave, as if your life (and freedom) depended on it.

Because it does.

 

[Kleanbore]

Once again, opinion, but if they choose to do so, they
either have a weak case against you, or you are in a jurisdiction which takes a dim view of firearms ownership, in the first place

Why would you think that?

 

[Kleanbore]

Your question cannot be answered until a specific case is brought before a specific jury and argued by a specific prosecutor

That might tell us what did happen in one specific case, but that would not be meaningful.

Cases hinge on a number of things, inlcuding the little matter of evidence--all of the evidence that is admitted.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't know the specific laws of WA, but in places like Chicago and New York city, there have been quite a few of cases of people using non-permitted firearms for self defense where the self defense was deemed justified, no problem at all, but the people that defended themselves were charged with the possession of a weapon for which they did not have a permit. In both those places, I believe that results in arrests. That the illegal weapon was made known as a result of acting in self defense does not result in a dismissal of charges.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...That the illegal weapon was made known as a result of acting in self defense does not result in a dismissal of charges.

In 1984, Bernie Goetz using an unlicensed handgun defended himself in a New York subway from some armed robbers. He was tried for various assault related crimes and the weapons charge. He was acquitted of the assaults (the jury found his use of force to be justified self defense); but he was convicted and went to jail on the weapons charge (and he was hammered in a subsequent civil suit).

 

[RickD427]

Anytime that anyone uses deadly force, the incident is going to be very closely reviewed for the lawfulness of the force application. If a non-traditional weapon was used that's not going to increase the level of the review, we're pretty much already at the "top of the scale."

But keep in mind that the legality of the force application, and the legality of the possession of the weapon used are two completely different things. They're not connected. If you use an unlawfully possessed weapon to legally defend yourself, expect that the two issues will be reviewed separately to determine if you're going to be prosecuted for the illegal possession.

In making a prosecution decision, prosecutors look to the elements of the criminal statute believed to have been violated, but they also look to the "spirit" of the statute and to the state of mind of the violator. They are also guided by their evaluation of whether a conviction would likely be obtained. The outcome of those considerations can vary widely between jurisdictions. The Goetz case discussed above is a really good example of a prosecutor separating the two issues and proceeding only on the weapon possession charge. But in other jurisdictions, a prosecutor could easily decide "there ain't no way a jury is gonna convict on that" and decline charges, even though there is ample evidence that the law was violated.

How well do you know your prosecutor?

 

[Jammersix]

There is no licensing or registration of handguns in Washington State.

 

[Blackbeard 44]

I really do appreciate all of the replies, for the most part I am on the same page as most, it seems that these days the bad guys are protected and us regular folk are the problem

i will admit i am intrigued by the thought of building and carrying a piec I had completed and assembeled, but i just dont see it really making me feel comfortable, for now I will continue to carry my NAA wasp or Browning hi power

and Jammersix Washington since 2014 has implemented a series of laws regarding registeration of both rifles and pistols, everything must be transfered-registered

 

[mljdeckard]

I will put it on the list of things they can try to use if they are trying to hang you out.

"You used the same ammo the local police use, you were trying to live out a cop fantasy and get a chance to kill someone."
"If you really care about safety and accuracy, you would use the same ammunition the local police use."
"A 10mm is a monster cartridge, and anyone who uses one is looking for a chance to inflict serious damage to someone."
"Anyone who uses reloads for self-defense is irresponsible."

If the prosecutor has decided to hang you out and make an example of you, they will pick an aspect and twist it. So yes, an 80% frame is as good an issue as any.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...it seems that these days the bad guys are protected and us regular folk are the problem...

Well this really doesn't have anything to do with "these days." In general terms use-of-force law hasn't changed much in the last several hundred years. Intentional violence against another human has long been, on its face, a crime. But the law allows one to avoid criminal liability if it can be established that the act of violence was justified according to applicable legal standards, i. e., whether the actor reasonably concluded that his life, or the life of an innocent, were in immediate danger. The actor's state of mind is material to deciding that.

Also, it's not only good guys who claim self defense to escape liability for their acts of violence. Much of the time one criminal injures another he will claim self defense. As soon as the poice arrive to see one of us with a smoking gun in our hand and a guy with holes in him bleeding onto the carpet, our good guy certificates go into storage until it is decided that we're entitled to have them back.

 

[Spats McGee]

.....good shoot is a good shoot; bad shoot is bad.....

And there it is, the old "water is wet" theory of self-defense law. The reality of the (legal) situation is that the saying "a good shoot is a good shoot" completely overlooks the process by which it is determined whether a shoot was good in the first place.

....That all said, IF you are already a gun owner, and you choose to defend yourself with an 80% lower, nitpickers could pursue this in court, as much as they might pursue handloaded or other types of ammunition...

Has there been an actual case involving this?

Seems like it is the same or an analogy of using 80% hand loaded ammo. (The brass, Powder, bullet and primer are factory( the reloader just put it together). Now if the re loader cast his own bullet would that change the scenario?

I don't want to get sidetracked on the issue of handloads, but if you're comparing 80% firearms with handloads, you probably don't understand the problems with handloads. I explain it here.

.... Once again, opinion, but if they choose to do so, they either have a weak case against you, or you are in a jurisdiction which takes a dim view of firearms ownership, in the first place.

You don't think a prosecutor could throw your choice of firearm into the mix in a gun-friendly jurisdiction? Or wouldn't do so if he or she had a strong case? Why is that?

 

[Rule3]

I don't want to get sidetracked on the issue of handloads, but if you're comparing 80% firearms with handloads, you probably don't understand the problems with handloads. I explain it here.

Good grief. No, I don't want to either. Yes I understand about handloads it is a tad of sarcasm. Hand made is hand made.
Apparently you didn't understand my post.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The legality of using deadly force in self defense revolves around the legal justification based on "imminent danger" far more than anything else.

This question, when you think about it, is really no different in concept than the questions we see about what type of ammunition to use "in the eyes of the law or courts".

We are far better served knowing AND UNDERSTANDING the jurisdictional laws concerning the use of deadly force.

Now, if you were in possession of something the jurisdictional laws said was illegal to own, that would be a separate charge.

DISCLAIMER: I'm a nuclear engineer, not an attorney. So don't take this as any kind of actual legal advice.

 

[Spats McGee]

Good grief. No, I don't want to either. Yes I understand about handloads it is a tad of sarcasm. Hand made is hand made.
Apparently you didn't understand my post.

What's to not understand? You're comparing an 80% firearm to handloaded or reloaded ammo, and trying to get there by analogy. From an evidentiary standpoint (which is the problem with handloaded ammo), they're entirely different.

....Seems like it is the same or an analogy of using 80% hand loaded ammo. (The brass, Powder, bullet and primer are factory( the reloader just put it together). Now if the re loader cast his own bullet would that change the scenario?

 

[Ohen Cepel]

And there it is, the old "water is wet" theory of self-defense law. The reality of the (legal) situation is that the saying "a good shoot is a good shoot" completely overlooks the process by which it is determined whether a shoot was good in the first place.

I, and the other members here understand the legal system to some basic level.

Have the mods on this forum taken an official stance against 80% items?