NFA weapon as last defense for home defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
I personally suspect using a NFA item in self defense would make no difference if it was a 100% "clean" shoot. In such a situation the media would likely would say next to nothing about it because they would not want the public to hear anything positive about NFA items or about NFA owners. However, if it was a situation where it was less than 100% clear cut that you were in the right it probably wouldn't help your case any and the media would most likely be all over it. Personally though, I would use a NFA weapon for self defense without hesitation in your hypothetical scenario of armed intruders and a NFA item being the closest viable option when I felt my life was threatened. I surely am not going to worry about whether or not the tool I need to use for self defense is politically correct or what lawyers may or may not do with it. Live first, worry about the trial later. Like I said though, as long as it is legally held, and the shoot is clear cut self defense(ie: robbers are found dead in your house and you didn't do anything stupid like shooting a unarmed teenage thug after he ran out of your house or your neighbors house and is half way down the street with the stolen goods.) I don't think you would have anything more to worry about than if you had used any other gun.
 
This would probably be a good time to reiterate the old saw that nothing is a "good shoot" until other people (investigators, DAs, jurors) have decided it is. Your shiny halo and good guy's white hat don't make you the hero until those other folks have decided whether the totality of evidence indicates you met the state's legal standard of self defense.

What is under debate at the very heart of this question, though, is whether the use of an NFA item (an unusual, "scary," restricted type of weapon) will influence those people to prosecute when they otherwise wouldn't and convict when they might not have.

That's where Dr. Meyer's work is instructive. Prosecution or declining to prosecute, and Conviction or Acquittal aren't the results of scientific formulas that give predictable results. They are discretionary, more often than not. They are the results of opinions formed by other people. People who can be swayed by all sorts of things including gross ignorance of, and prejudice toward firearms, especially aggressive, militaristic firearms. It is a real factor. We don't have to let it make our decisions for us but ignoring it completely is probably unwise as well.
 
I'm confident, considering the jurisdiction in which I live, that the only problem I'd be concerned about, should I have to use one of my firearms for s.d., would be what to wear when I'm given a parade around the town square.

I can't imagine that anybody in the aforesaid jurisdicition would ever be prosecuted, if they take the life of another in an obvious case of s.d., such as a home invasion, car-jacking, etc.

I know for sure that I wouldn't be prosecuted, should I use an NFA weapon in my jurisdiction in a case of s.d.
 
Sam1911 said:
This would probably be a good time to reiterate the old saw that nothing is a "good shoot" until other people (investigators, DAs, jurors) have decided it is. Your shiny halo and good guy's white hat don't make you the hero until those other folks have decided whether the totality of evidence indicates you met the state's legal standard of self defense.

What is under debate at the very heart of this question, though, is whether the use of an NFA item (an unusual, "scary," restricted type of weapon) will influence those people to prosecute when they otherwise wouldn't and convict when they might not have.

That's where Dr. Meyer's work is instructive. Prosecution or declining to prosecute, and Conviction or Acquittal aren't the results of scientific formulas that give predictable results. They are discretionary, more often than not. They are the results of opinions formed by other people. People who can be swayed by all sorts of things including gross ignorance of, and prejudice toward firearms, especially aggressive, militaristic firearms. It is a real factor. We don't have to let it make our decisions for us but ignoring it completely is probably unwise as well.
Click to expand...
Perfectly said.
 
The Gary Fadden Incident by Massad Ayoob, published in American Handgunner. Shooter was an HK employee in VA, charged with murder, jury found him not guilty.
Click to expand...
Not a great example of how using NFA weapons for self-defense won't hurt the defender.

He was acquitted but his defense cost $45,000 in 1984--adjusted for inflation that would amount to over 100,000.

Fadden himself felt that his use of an NFA weapon was a major factor in the DA's decision to prosecute him and made the comment that <If I had used a Remington 870 Wingmaster instead> “I would have gone home that night."
 
Another consideration is how use of an NFA items could influence the decision to prosecute as well as the likelihood of being convicted. It's been opined that a "scarier" looking weapon could be used to convince a jury that the home defender is a gun nut with blood lust or just paranoid. Could the fact that an NFA item were used not pose the same risk?
 
A select fire weapon sounds about ideal for "Papa Zoot" and his "brothers." But you have to figure on losing it to evidence, which is reason enough not to.
 
Full auto seems like a horrible idea but a suppressor and/or can, especially the latter, seems to offer significant advantage for a HD weapon.
 
I keep my SBR locked up in the basement and unloaded. I have other self-defense options. Losing my $3K SBR to the cops because some crack-head broke into my home doesn't sound like a good plan.... which is also why I no longer carry a $1300.00 Kimber, I carry a $450.00 S&W 442.
Folks should just assume they will not get their gun back after a shooting and plan accordingly.
 
I think we have deviated quite a bit from the OP's question which assumes NFA weapon or nothing.

This is exactly what Garry Fadden went through and his case seems to be the most malicious prosecution given he did everything right except use a machine gun. Yet, all told, I'm sure he is glad to be alive which is probably the real answer to the OP's question.

Mike
 
Under the worst case scenario, what do you think the law would think if the closest weapon you had access to in a dire situation with armed intruders was an auto subgun, short barrel shotgun, etc or some other similar firearm.
Click to expand...

Worst case scenario would be if you shot someone you have motive to kill other than strangers committing a home invasion. People like your ex wife, wife's boyfriend, a relative where you where a beneficiary of a very lucrative life insurance policy, your business partner, any one you are having a feud with, etc. You hay have legally justified reasons to shoot them but it complicates things.

As long as you where not running a drug house, meth lab or other illegal operation or are a convicted felon whose rights haven't been restored, the law regarding self defense is the same regardless of weapons. If you are prohibited by law of having a weapon, well expect to be in trouble.

The media only cares if something sensational happens. If you machine gun intruders and wake up the neighborhood doing it, that would be sensational. If you shoot an intruder with a NFA shotgun its not exceptionally news worthy as most reporters know less than nothing about the legalities of shotguns and wouldn't pick up on barrel length being normal or specially licensed NFA. As long as your NFA guns are legal you shouldn't have any problems with the police or the legal system if the shooting is a good one.

I think the test of a good shooting is one where you don't care at the time what the law thinks or does because dealing with those issues later are a lot better than being dead or seriously injured then.
 
Couldn't one also make the same argument that attending seminars such as those conducted by Ayoob, particpating in IDPA, etc., would be just as damning in a self-defense shooting as the use of, for example, a silencer?

If one is a member of a gun range, wouldn't that be just as damning as the use of a silencer? Only between the ears, I'd suggest, of a non-legally trained, self-promoting, narcissistic, chain-smoking gunrag-writer/seminar-giver!! :rolleyes:

Most of the arguments I've heard so far are pretty sophomoric. District attorneys in most jurisdictions are elected officials. Unless one lives in a jurisdiction in which Democrats control who gets elected, then one isn't likely to be prosecuted for legtimately defending oneself. :cool:

I get my legal advice from real practicing attorneys, district attorneys and sitting judges. I'd recommend the same to anybody.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't one also make the same argument that attending seminars such as those conducted by Ayoob, particpating in IDPA, etc., would be just as damning in a self-defense shooting as the use of, for example, a silencer?
Click to expand...
Not if one wanted to be taken credibly. Experience with courses in lawful self-defense can be and are used to show that you acted as taught, in accordance with law. That helps the jury perceive your actions as closer to those of the hypothetical "reasonable man." Similar things could be said about IDPA or other directed skills practice. You are able to be cast in the light of more of a subject matter expert who's actions could be perceived as more likely to be aligned with best practices in the field. (Again, "likely," "perceived," "reasonable," and so forth. This is influencing their mental picture of you as the good guy.)

A silencer would be, at best, neutral. At worst, too much TV/movie assassin. A short-barreled shotgun? You HOPE that doesn't come up. Everyone knows the expression "sawed-off" and the defense WILL use it. An SBR? Ehhh, probably not a big deal. Most folks have no idea that's even a thing. A machine gun of some sort? Well...that's definitely going to get "play" in the court room. You're going to spend as much time talking about that as you are the break-in.

Most of the arguments I've heard so far are pretty sophomoric. District attorneys in most jurisdictions are elected officials. Unless one lives in a jurisdiction in which Democrats control who gets elected, then one isn't likely to be prosecuted for legtimately defending oneself
Click to expand...

Not really. When you look at some of the cases most noteworthy for illustrating how details can turn a case hard against the "defender" (such lists have been presented here before by Frank Ettin, among others...worth a search) a great many have happened in "gun friendly" states where -- "for sure" -- you'd be safe from overzealous prosecution by Democrats or whatever your chosen silly epithet might be.

All that to say there's no reason at all to think that your case will not be a very rocky road just because you've got a DA or judge who tells you, "Aww shucks, just kill 'em all..."
 
Last edited:
If one is a member of a gun range, wouldn't that be just as damning as the use of a silencer? Only between the ears, I'd suggest, of a non-legally trained, self-promoting, narcissistic, chain-smoking gunrag-writer/seminar-giver!!
Click to expand...

Gun club membership is likely far more common than silencer ownership. It's seen as far more "normal" than owning silencers.

Not if one wanted to be taken credibly. Experience with courses in lawful self-defense can be and are used to show that you acted as taught, in accordance with law. That helps the jury perceive your actions as closer to those of the hypothetical "reasonable man."
Click to expand...

His name alludes me at the moment but I do recall reading the story about a man (in Arizona I believe) whose wife got into an encounter with neighbors across the street, he got pulled in, assaulted and used his gun. In the ensuing court case his high degree of activity in self defense courses and/or competition was used to portray him as trigger happy by the prosecutor, or so I read. In fact, as I recall, he was actually an instructor.
 
It is certainly possible. My point previously was to say that these other factors (training, practice, instruction in the law, etc.) CAN be used to show you in a positive light.

I can't really picture how the possible negative views of machine guns, "sawed-off" shotguns, or silencers could be used to make you look BETTER to the uninformed jurors. About the best you could hope for is that they won't think too much worse of you because you unloaded on the bad guy with a machine gun.

A prosecutor could indeed try for a "trigger-happy" angle because you're an accomplished shooter, but your defense counsel could likely make a lot more good out of it going for the angle of a "responsible guy, took the time to learn the law, knowledgeable, not some backwoods redneck blasting away at anyone who steps on his land, etc."

It's all a game of perceptions and painting the right picture with the available fact.
 
Rather than idle speculation, can anybody post a link to a case in which a legally-owned silencer was used in a case of s.d. and the shooter was prosecuted because a silencer was used? FWIW, I consider Ayoob's opinions to be sophomoric, amateurish, and worthless. I depend on real lawyers for my legal advice. ;)

I'm planning on using a suppressed G17 for my nightstand firearm. The risk of damaging my hearing far outweighs my fear of being prosecuted for using the suppressed G17 for h.d. purposes.

I believe my analogy about attending seminars, participating in IDPA, etc., to be on-point. Do I really have to blather on about what the proverbial "overzealous" prosecutor might say about one having participated in IDPA, attending seminars, etc.? Use your imagination...just like Ayoob does with his legal advice. ;)
 
I don't see why it would ever get to a Jury. If it was a clean shoot on a home invasion and your title-2 stuff was legally registered, why would it matter? A DA would have to be an idiot to even bring up the thought of prosecution. I know the deputies around here would give you a pat on your back. YMMV
 
I don't see why it would ever get to a Jury. If it was a clean shoot on a home invasion and your title-2 stuff was legally registered, why would it matter? A DA would have to be an idiot to even bring up the thought of prosecution.
Click to expand...
As we so often point out, though, a "clean shoot" isn't a clean shoot until someone else decides that it is so. If the deputies come and pat you on the back and hand out cigars, it really doesn't matter whether you used a howitzer or strangled the guy into submission with a damp spaghetti noodle.

But even in super gun-friendly states and cities and towns, self-defence shootings don't always look "clean" to everyone who's opinion matters. Even if you had your white hat on and your halo was polished up and shining bright, the decision whether to prosecute is completely out of your hands. It is certainly possible for a DA to look at the evidence collected and decide that there are enough grey areas that s/he wants to see the case tried, and indeed may feel quite confident that your out-of-the-ordinary choice of weapon may sway a jury to view that evidence in an unfavorable light.

Such calculations and weighing-in-the-balance (both in the DA's mind and in the minds of each juror) are not recorded and published in an accessible and easy-to-follow guidebook we can all point to for examples of where use of an unusual or particularly "scary" gun contributed materially to convictions.
 
Sam1911 said:
As we so often point out, though, a "clean shoot" isn't a clean shoot until someone else decides that it is so. If the deputies come and pat you on the back and hand out cigars, it really doesn't matter whether you used a howitzer or strangled the guy into submission with a damp spaghetti noodle.

But even in super gun-friendly states and cities and towns, self-defence shootings don't always look "clean" to everyone who's opinion matters. Even if you had your white hat on and your halo was polished up and shining bright, the decision whether to prosecute is completely out of your hands. It is certainly possible for a DA to look at the evidence collected and decide that there are enough grey areas that s/he wants to see the case tried, and indeed may feel quite confident that your out-of-the-ordinary choice of weapon may sway a jury to view that evidence in an unfavorable light.

Such calculations and weighing-in-the-balance (both in the DA's mind and in the minds of each juror) are not recorded and published in an accessible and easy-to-follow guidebook we can all point to for examples of where use of an unusual or particularly "scary" gun contributed materially to convictions.
Click to expand...
I hear ya. I just don't see how in a "home defense" situation, a trial would even be an option. You're sleeping, someone breaks in, you shoot them with your suppressed whatever, they expire, you call the cops, they come and do an invest, you call servpro to clean your walls and flooring, you goto work and start your day with a hell of a story to tell.
 
If you can plan out your violent encounters so they happen just like that, and they look like they happened just like that to them who's opinion could put you behind the defendant's table, wonderful! In fact, a great many of the strategy and tactics discussions we have here center, at their cores, on just how to accomplish that.

But stuff happens and folks do sometimes end up quite unpleasantly surprised that things weren't just like they'd planned when trouble happened.

...

And as an aside, I know you're being facetious but the idea that you might shoot someone in your home and then be sent on about your business that day after a quick mopping up is a bit too glib and silly for a serious subject like this. As much as we might gloss the details over we are still discussing the taking of a human life in a most violent manner, and all the legal, practical, psychological, and emotional weight of such a thing deserves to not be blithely dismissed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Anybody carry NFA's?
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
jmorris
jmorris
P
  • Locked
Using an NFA weapon for self-defense?
Replies
21
Views
1K
Moparmike
M
dobedo
Home Defense
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
The Night Rider
The Night Rider
Y
  • Locked
Assuming you can't get to your gun, home defense alternative?
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
4K
Zeke/PA
Z
Z
  • Locked
Is 5.56mm AR ideal weapons for home defense?
2
Replies
28
Views
804
Kleanbore
K
Back
Top