NFA weapon as last defense for home defense

[zignal_zero]

Cosmoline - you read my mind! I do not want to lose a 5G gun to evidence for 16months or more.

OptimusPrime - as far as an automatic not being great for "precise and accurate" shot placement, mine is

Ironman - you feel the way you do because you live in FL we enjoy the benefit of a judicial system that is not completely screwed up.

OK, y'all should keep a few things in mind:
Juries are made up of people, people have emotions, emotions can be manipulated.
Also remember a jury is made up of 12 people who couldn't figure out how to get out of jury duty

I used to keep my MAX11 as my car gun. I quit due to fear of it being placed into evidence and cared for improperly. When I stamp my Yugo M92 and stock it, it will still be my car gun (as it is now).

On a side note- while I STRONGLY advise AGAINST altering a crime scene, I do not believe any1 would ever know the difference if you removed you can after a shoot as long as the shootee was a good 10' away.

Also "worst case" (as in me or a family member is going to die) I would have little to no concern about legal ramifications. Staying alive trumps all.

 

[Ironman]

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.

Yes, you get my point. As far as taking a human life, you must remember in this HD situation this human is trying to kill you and/or your family. I would not hesitate nor would I morn this life I just took. I am around death at work every 3 days, enough to know just how evil criminals can be and just how strong a victim needs to be to survive. Has this made me jaded? Sure, but it's how the world works and some see it how it is and others go on living in a fairly tale world. All that said, I live in FL, stopping a forceable felony in my household with lethal force wouldn't make it past my local LEO's desk report. This is how the rest of the world should work.

My nightstand gun is a suppressed HK USPT45 with a weapon light and my wives is a suppressed USP9SD with a weapon light. If a scumbag makes it past my alarm, my two dogs, and my master bedroom door well then I guess he didn't realize those were there for his protection and will have to live or not….with his poor choices. The goal being we are good and healthy at the end of this incident. I could give a damn about my guns. I can buy more. YMMV

 

[JohnKSa]

FWIW, I consider Ayoob's opinions to be sophomoric, amateurish, and worthless. I depend on real lawyers for my legal advice.

Well, that sets you apart from the lawyers you go to for advice. Real lawyers listen to Ayoob and consider his opinions to be valuable. I sat in a recent TXBARCLE seminar and watched a room full of lawyers listen intently to Ayoob speak. He was a guest speaker at the seminar.

All that said, I live in FL, stopping a forceable felony in my household with lethal force wouldn't make it past my local LEO's desk report.

That depends on the circumstances of the case. I assume you're referring to Castle Doctrine laws. It's important to understand that they don't offer unlimited protection. They do provide important benefits, but people tend to have an inflated view of the protection they offer.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, that sets you apart from the lawyers you go to for advice. Real lawyers listen to Ayoob and consider his opinions to be valuable. I sat in a recent TXBARCLE seminar and watched a room full of lawyers listen intently to Ayoob speak. He was a guest speaker at the seminar.

Listening doesn't imply agreeing. Ayoob wasn't the only speaker either. Lawyers will also listen intently to judges, victims, police officers, witnesses, and even to other lawyers.

The people there took the time and expense to attend the seminar, so they listened to the speakers.

 

[hso]

"I don't see how..."

Research Gary Fadden's case. He clearly was in fear for his and his girlfriend's life, was chased by a gang, fled to his employer's fenced business and then had to defend himself and his girlfriend with an NFA weapon. He was still charged and prosecuted. His employer spent the time and money on the defense, but he still had to go through the injustice of being charged.

 

[JohnKSa]

His employer spent the time and money on the defense...

His employer paid for some of his defense, but not all of it. He was left to pay a significant portion of it on his own.

 

[justice06rr]

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.

I know the media would make a field day if you used an automatic weapon, but if your life was on the line and it was the closest viable option I can understand.

Do you think the prosecution would try to hang you, or it would be treated no different from a normal firearm?

Naaah... it'll be treated as any other shooting incident. And the media will call your gun an evil "Assault Rifle" anyway -- whether its a semi or select fire weapon.

Most media and the sheeple cannot distiguish the differences between them. Now the trial itself may be a different story. As in any court case, it will all depend on the details of the situation. If you are in the clear for shooting, meaning you were justified in your shoot and all your paperwork/background is clean, you should be ok.

As usual the prosecution will try to disect every part of the case including the weapon you used. If you are a mother who used an AK47 to protect your family from intruders breaking into your home and causing harm to you, you might be in the clear, but your weapon will still be looked at with disdain.

Now if you are a drug addict, ex-con or felon, and used an AR15 or Mac10, thats a different story.

 

[JohnKSa]

Naaah... it'll be treated as any other shooting incident.

Not to belabor the point, but Gary Fadden, who used a NFA weapon for self-defense believed that his case was most certainly NOT treated as any other shooting incident.

What should have been an open and shut case (he was pursued for miles by a gang of armed bikers and was finally cornered and forced to shoot one of them) turned into a legal nightmare that cost him a fortune. His comment was: <If I had used a Remington 870 Wingmaster instead> “I would have gone home that night."

If what you have when things go south is an NFA weapon then defend yourself with it. If you have a choice ahead of time, choosing something else for self-defense might simplify your life considerably and save you a lot of time and money.

 

[Sam1911]

It would radically alter GSR patterns. Like it or not, they are part of crime scene forensics. I REALLY don't think you should try to stow your suppressor after a shooting!

 

[justice06rr]

Not to belabor the point, but Gary Fadden, who used a NFA weapon for self-defense believed that his case was most certainly NOT treated as any other shooting incident.

What should have been an open and shut case (he was pursued for miles by a gang of armed bikers and was finally cornered and forced to shoot one of them) turned into a legal nightmare that cost him a fortune. His comment was: <If I had used a Remington 870 Wingmaster instead> “I would have gone home that night."

If what you have when things go south is an NFA weapon then defend yourself with it. If you have a choice ahead of time, choosing something else for self-defense might simplify your life considerably and save you a lot of time and money.

Thanks for belaboring the point. You actually convinced me to research the Gary Fadden case and bring up important points.

In the end, Gary was found NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS.

Also from
http://www.davehayes.org/2006/02/10/the-gary-fadden-incident

the judge made a point of instructing the jury that the death weapon had nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the shooting was self-defense. The jury learned that Gary purchased the AC-556 personally and that it was perfectly legal to possess the weapon.

(Read the above article in the link if you are curious about using your NFA weapon in a SD case. I found it to be a good read.)

Its funny that the justice system hasn't changed even after 20yrs. They will always attempt to prosecute you for murder even if your shoot was justified.

Case in point, We can all remember the nightmare my fellow Floridian George Zimmerman went through. In the end he was cleared of all charges, but of course they still arrested him and tried him for murder.

As with any criminal case, the devil is in the details...

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Don't quote me on this, but I believe Massad Ayoob has said he has never seen a self-defense case involving an NFA weapon NOT go to trial. For what that's worth.

 

[JohnKSa]

In the end, Gary was found NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS.

Yes he was. His defense cost his employer somewhere around $50K and he, himself, ended up having to pay a similar amount out of his own pocket before it was all over. It took him 8 years to pay that debt. The shooting also ultimately cost him his job and fiancee.

...the judge made a point of instructing the jury that the death weapon had nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the shooting was self-defense. The jury learned that Gary purchased the AC-556 personally and that it was perfectly legal to possess the weapon.

That is true. It is part of why he was acquitted.

HOWEVER, that completely misses the point. The point is that even though this was an extremely clear cut case of self-defense that should never have gone to trial, Fadden was prosecuted because the weapon used was an NFA item.

Also from
http://www.davehayes.org/2006/02/10/...adden-incident

Read the article through to the end. Near the last of the article, you will find this:

Asked what he thinks would have happened if he’d shot Hamilton with a Remington 870 Wingmaster instead, Fadden replies with certainty, “I would have gone home that night. I’ve told dozens of people since, ‘Do not use a Class III weapon for personal defense.”‘ Today, the guns Gary is likely to have in his car have neutral images: an M-1 .30 carbine, and a 10mm Glock 20 pistol.​

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Read the article through to the end. Near the last of the article, you will find this:

Yep, but of course he is alive today because of a Class III weapon.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe Massad Ayoob has said he has never seen a self-defense case involving an NFA weapon NOT go to trial. For what that's worth.

For what it is worth, you got that absolutely wrong.

Every case I've seen of a shooting with a lawfully owned Class III weapon has gone to a Grand Jury. Some of those grand juries have indicted.

http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

Going to the grand jury isn't going to trial. Lots of cases go to the grand jury depending on the state and its laws.

It should also be pointed out that some go to the grand jury because of possible dubious circumstances, as can be the case.

As should be noted in the article about Beckwith, he has used Class III weapons in multiple shootings for SD. He did in 76 and 90.

 

[Sam1911]

<Pssst...is there any chance we could call them NFA firearms instead of "Class III"? Just because its mo' proper? Thanks.>

 

[JohnKSa]

Yep, but of course he is alive today because of a Class III weapon.

Correct. I would certainly never recommend that a person forgo self-defense because the only firearm handy was an NFA item or was equipped with an NFA item. Neither would I recommend overlooking an NFA firearm in favor of an obviously much inferior non-NFA firearm. (By that I mean that it wouldn't be smart to grab an NAA .22 mini-revolver instead of a silenced AC556 during a home invasion simply because the NAA is a non-NFA item and the AC556 might look bad to the prosecutor. In that case the vast superiority of the AC556 as a self-defense weapon would obviously outweigh the potential for a more legally complicated aftermath.)

Being prosecuted is clearly far better than being dead or seriously injured.

But if you have a choice of self-defense weapons, choosing a non-NFA firearm for self-defense might simplify your life considerably and save you a lot of time and money.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I agree that it might simplify your life AFTER the incident, but if a NFA {for you, Sam} weapon is your best weapon for self defense, why would you NOT use your best weapon?

You may get prosecuted regardless of the weapon used. That is something else that also comes to mind and we have seen it time and time again. Be it because of prosecutor bias or just something of something hinky about the circumstances, it happens.

In many of the cases, strangely enough, the prosecution seems much more dramatic because the person engaged in self defense killed one or more people. The argument could be made that it might simplify your life after the incident if you don't kill your attackers which means using less lethal or non-lethal means of defense, but of the choices you have, are those your best option for defense?

Did NFA complicate Fadden's case? Sure. Did NFA complicate one of Beckwith's cases? Maybe, or maybe it was his Rambo tactics and the number of people he shot.

Did hollowpoints complicate Harold Fish's case? Sure. Did the caliber Harold Fish choose complicate his case? Sure. Fish used a revolver.

The prosecution is going to do its best to prosecute you if the opt to press charges. That is just a part of the system. I have no doubt Fadden felt singled out and that his case might have gone differently had he used a shotgun. Had he used a shotgun and been prosecuted, he might have felt like his case would have been treated different if he would have used a pistol. It isn't like Fadden had a lot of experience being prosecuted.

Sure, lots of things may complicate your life if you are involved in a SD shooting, especially if you kill your attacker. The one thing you virtually never hear from accused people is how easy the prosecution went on them in the trail. Being prosecuted does complicate your life. Expect that it will happen and defend yourself the best way possible, first in the fight, then in court.

 

[JohnKSa]

...if a NFA {for you, Sam} weapon is your best weapon for self defense, why would you NOT use your best weapon?

If there were an obvious superiority (NFA item would surely would be better) then I would use it. If there was not an obvious superiority (NFA item might be better) then I wouldn't use it because it might cause problems down the road that I'd rather avoid.

From a purely practical perspective, it won't ever be an issue for me. Based on the expense and hassle of owning NFA items, and the availability of excellent non-NFA home/self-defense firearms and accessories, I've already made the determination that using non-NFA items for home/self-defense won't create an obvious handicap on my part. Therefore I've already simplified my life and saved myself money by not procuring NFA items for home/self-defense.

 

[hentown]

I'm absolutely sure that real lawyers aren't Ayoob's "market". Ayoob's market consists primarily of the ignorant proletariat. Real lawyers wouldn't/don't give a guy like Ayoob the time of day. Furthermore, real writers don't write for gunrags.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Do your local police use machineguns in the performance of their duties? If so, they should already be aware of the PURPOSE and utility of such guns for defense. In which case, logic may be employed in furthering the understanding of such use by "we the people", should prosecutors and district attorneys be ignorant of such.

 

[JohnKSa]

Real lawyers wouldn't/don't give a guy like Ayoob the time of day.

Ayoob was a featured speaker at the 2013 TXBARCLE (Texas Bar Continuing Legal Education) seminar entitled "What Every Texas Lawyer Needs to Know About Firearms Law". I didn't do a count, but it looked to me like there were over 100 real lawyers giving him the time of day while he spoke.

He was invited to speak by the real lawyer who organized the seminar.

 

[justice06rr]

Yes he was. His defense cost his employer somewhere around $50K and he, himself, ended up having to pay a similar amount out of his own pocket before it was all over. It took him 8 years to pay that debt. The shooting also ultimately cost him his job and fiancee.


HOWEVER, that completely misses the point. The point is that even though this was an extremely clear cut case of self-defense that should never have gone to trial, Fadden was prosecuted because the weapon used was an NFA item.

Read the article through to the end. Near the last of the article, you will find this:
Asked what he thinks would have happened if he’d shot Hamilton with a Remington 870 Wingmaster instead, Fadden replies with certainty, “I would have gone home that night. I’ve told dozens of people since, ‘Do not use a Class III weapon for personal defense.”‘ Today, the guns Gary is likely to have in his car have neutral images: an M-1 .30 carbine, and a 10mm Glock 20 pistol.

I read the article in its entirety.

Again, in the end he was cleared of all charges, regarding of court costs or unintended consequences to his life/job. We cannot always predict or choose what weapon to use for SD; you use whats available to you. If that is a Select-Fire rifle or 12ga shotgun, the results are never what we think. Every case is different, but will be subject to extreme scrutiny.

We all know lawyers and trials cost money. I went to court for a very minor (non-criminal) case back in my teens and it cost me close to $5k alone. I cannot imagine how much it costs for a criminal/murder case. $50-100k is not out of the question.

But the cost and weapon used is beside the point.

I hate to bring up Zimmerman case, but even though he was using a low-capacity 9mm pistol, look where it got him. I bet he has court costs close to $100k and also lost his job etc. And that's from using a 9mm semiauto.

how is that different again??????

 

[JohnKSa]

We cannot always predict or choose what weapon to use for SD; you use whats available to you.

Sure. I've said as much at least twice now. But the fact that we cannot ALWAYS predict or choose doesn't mean that we can NEVER predict or choose.

...the results are never what we think.

The results aren't ALWAYS what we think, but that doesn't mean they are NEVER what we think. The results are not 100% predictable, but that doesn't mean we can't make some educated guesses/predictions about the outcome. This topic isn't about being 100% accurate in predicting/influencing an outcome (there's no way to do that), it is about shading an outcome in your favor.

But the cost and weapon used is beside the point.

False and false.

The cost is only a non-issue for those who are so wealthy that they can write a check for "$50-100k" without batting an eye. I don't personally know anyone like that and I'm certainly not like that. So the cost is not beside the point to me nor would it be beside the point to anyone I know.

And the weapon used can certainly influence the outcome because the outcome is based to at least some extent on humans who are affected by their personal prejudices and preconceptions.

how is that different again??????

It is so different that it is pointless to even attempt to explain the difference to someone who can not see it at first glance.

This topic is interesting because it is one of several topics that tend to divide the discussion participants into those who understand that things aren't always black and white and those who feel that everything is always black and white.

 

[jmorris]

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.

If I needed it that bad I would not give it a second thought.

Kind of a silly question really, what if a bad guy broke into your house and you owned zero firearms; however, he had an illegal suppressed machinegun with a SBS mounted under the barrel. If you managed to take it away from him and felt your life was still in danger would you use said illegal device to save your life?

Assuming you answered yes, why would you not use whatever you have legally to do the same?