AZ
Member
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)
usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters
usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters
NFA Firearms for home defense?
Or loosen them.short shotgun works best 18 inches.usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters
^That. FWIW, I have plans to add a sound moderator to my "nightstand gun"...hearing comes in handy from time to time.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.
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.
Didn't in NC...until about a week ago, when our representatives passed a stronger Castle Doctrine [happy dance].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.
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.
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.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?