Tax stamp Class III for self defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have talked to the local police in my area about using my FA MAC10 for personal protection. The answer they gave me was "they didn't care!" Dead is dead. No such thing as "overkill." Kill is kill, period. They did however mention the fact that the news media will probably make a big deal out of it to make you look bad!. Thats all that was said. Personally I perfer a 12 gauge 3 inch magnum 00 buck up close. Hell I think its better that a sub in most cases.:uhoh:
 
"I have talked to the local police in my area about using my FA MAC10 for personal protection. The answer they gave me was "they didn't care!" Dead is dead. No such thing as "overkill." Kill is kill, period."

They are not the ones who make the decisions about prosecuting. A District Attorney makes them. In many cases they are elected.
What are your local politics like?
Finding out in front of a grand jury (if they bother to call you before indicting) can cause a lot of hurt.
 
Worse case scenario is perhaps a negligence charge for any stray bullet damage and a manslaughter charge if you hit an innocent by mistake layin' down suppressive fire.

As I stated, using a NFA firearm is not very smart. Good scenario for the Brady Bunch to get rid of NFAs and CHLs.
 
Disclaimer: I don't own any Title 2 firearms/accessories, so take this with a grain of salt.

Full auto vs. semiauto - probably not the full-auto, even if I could afford one (a $15,000 M16 or AK would be worth about 3 times as much as both our vehicles put together). Increased chance of frivolous prosecution b/c of media attention; you go through your ammunition faster (how many people who are not LEO's/military have shot their full-auto in the grip of a fight-or-flight response before?); increased risk of stray shots (I live in a suburb); and you stand a good chance of never seeing the gun again. If I owned a Title 2 auto, I think I'd view it as more of an investment/expensive toy than a home defense gun, particularly since I couldn't afford the ammunition bill to practice with it on a regular basis...

SBR vs. 16" carbine - the SBR makes more sense than the machinegun, IMHO, but more for pistol-caliber carbines than rifle-caliber carbines. A 16" .223 carbine is excruciatingly loud already; in my house, a 12" barrel wouldn't gain me much in maneuverability over a 16" barrel, but it will be considerably louder, have more muzzle blast, and offer less ballistically. I'd rather have the 16". For a 9mm carbine, a shorter barrel might make more sense, but in a carbine-length firearm I prefer .223 over pistol calibers.

Suppressed SBR vs. unsuppressed carbine of the same overall length - tough call. I can see the advantage of the suppressed SBR from a hearing standpoint, but I'm not sure if it would be worth the extra cost and trouble, and you do lose a bit ballistically in .223. Again, this may make more sense for pistol-caliber carbines, since they will gain more from the suppressor anyway.
 
Good scenario for the Brady Bunch to get rid of NFAs and CHLs.
:rolleyes:

That is an amazing story! Right up there w/ the story of the gunshop owner that sprayed the guys down w/ his S&W Model 76
Don't miss the $90,000 in legal bills. Which almost certainly wouldn't have occurred with any other firearm........
 
They are not the ones who make the decisions about prosecuting. A District Attorney makes them. In many cases they are elected.
What are your local politics like?

Local politic's is against the bad guys. :eek:

Your right about the DA being the one that makes the final decision's but let me put it this way. Here in Okla. if someone broke into your house and threatend your wife, kids, or your life, it would be hard pressed to get any conviction against the home owner no matter what kind of weapon he/she used in self defense. We do have a "MAKE MY DAY" law here. If your in somebodys house and you ain't supposed to be there then, your in one hell of a bad situation to begin with! :uhoh:

But, like I said, I have a FA but I much prefer the 12 gauge shotgun with 00 Buck for self defense.:D
 
Just to clear things up for everyone, when I say suppressed I mean a suppressed pistol.

SBR (I assume that is a short barreled rifle?) is not something that interests me at the moment. If I had $20k to spend it would be on a Thompson....and that wouldn't get used for home defense. .....maybe when the world ends I would pull it out....but until the ATF is gone there is no way I would risk loosing that firearm.

My main concern was if using a class 3 item is against the law if you are legal to own one.
 
Worse case scenario is perhaps a negligence charge for any stray bullet damage and a manslaughter charge if you hit an innocent by mistake layin' down suppressive fire.

As I stated, using a NFA firearm is not very smart. Good scenario for the Brady Bunch to get rid of NFAs and CHLs.

And out of left field......If you lay down suppressive in any home defense scenario, with any type of firearm and there's a DA around to charge you, you're going to get at least one book thrown at you.
 
The problem with a suppressed pistol is that they're hard to holster. I'd rather have a holstered unsuppressed pistol that I can put into action immediately than a suppressed pistol that I have to go run to my safe to get.
 
My main concern was if using a class 3 item is against the law if you are legal to own one.

I think I already said this, but "check the laws in your state" is the best answer I can give you. You may not be able to CCW with a suppressor, but I can't see any legal limitations on HD with one, at least at the FedGov level if your paperwork is all in order.

IANAL, and I *didn't* sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :D
 
Just to clear things up for everyone, when I say suppressed I mean a suppressed pistol.

SBR (I assume that is a short barreled rifle?) is not something that interests me at the moment. If I had $20k to spend it would be on a Thompson....and that wouldn't get used for home defense. .....maybe when the world ends I would pull it out....but until the ATF is gone there is no way I would risk loosing that firearm.

My main concern was if using a class 3 item is against the law if you are legal to own one.
There is definitely no Federal law that would preclude using a Title 2/Class III item, such as a suppressed pistol or an SBR, for self-defense. If such weapons are legal to possess in a particular state, it would be unlikely that there would be any prohibitions against using them in justified defense of your own home, but you'd want to search your state firearm statutes just to make sure.

The downside of a suppressed pistol for HD would be that it is nearly as long in front of the grip as a pistol-caliber carbine, but without the carbine's advantages that relate to the shoulder stock and the longer sight radius. I'd rather have a suppressed short-barreled carbine, personally.
 
Check your state laws...for instance, FL doesnt allow the carry of a machinegun as ccw, but I think thats all they pretty much dont allow if you have all the right paperwork/stamps. So check out where you live.
 
When I finally finish a suppressed SBR (might be quite a while), I intend to use it for HD. Primary reason being, to save my hearing. I am convinced that different people's ears react to loud noises in different ways. Unfotunately, I've learned the hard way that I'm in the camp that doesn't hear right for hours after being exposed to even one round fired without hearing protection/suppressor. I can't even imagine what it would do to me indoors in an enclosed room. In the aftermath of an HD shooting, I would want to have as many of my senses as possible functioning correctly.

My residence has a lot of tight corners and narrow hallways, so there is also a premium on maneuverablility for me. Therefore, I feel the optimal solution for me is both SBR'd, and suppressed. Even if they confiscate the entire weapon, they've still only taken less than $2500 from me, and I consider good hearing for the rest of my life to be worth that, and much more.

Political winds around here don't tend to favor the bad guys, so I wouldn't be worried about that either. I would hesitate to use a full auto though, even if I did own one... you are putting a *far* more expensive weapon at risk of being confiscated, for what I consider to be little or no practical gain in terms of effectiveness.
 
you are putting a *far* more expensive weapon at risk of being confiscated, for what I consider to be little or no practical gain in terms of effectiveness

One must remember, unless YOU are charged with a crime, nobody can confiscate anything. Title II weapons are still "private property" just as much as someone's car or house or bank account or.... .:)
 
Worse case scenario is perhaps a negligence charge for any stray bullet damage and a manslaughter charge if you hit an innocent by mistake layin' down suppressive fire.

As I stated, using a NFA firearm is not very smart. Good scenario for the Brady Bunch to get rid of NFAs and CHLs.


And out of left field......If you lay down suppressive in any home defense scenario, with any type of firearm and there's a DA around to charge you, you're going to get at least one book thrown at you.

People are implying that if you use an NFA weapon to defend yourself you will/could get prosecuted for killin' the perp because of the weapon. Not true (at least not legally correct) if killing the perp is justifyable it doesn't matter what weapon you use. My point is any charges would result from other things that happened to indicate negligence, etc... If you put a 3 round burst into a home invaders' chest from an lawfully owned MP5SD, there is no legally correct way to prosecute you due to the weapon choice.
 
Some states/jurisdictions require an arrest even for an obviously justifiable homocide. Once in their hands, getting it back will be a long, laborious, and expensive process. Course, if you can afford one in the first place....;)
 
I can't imagine a single judge in this country would condone the use of an SMG or SBS as a defensive weapon and you would likely be guilty the moment you walked into the courtroom.
Any judge that thinks that shouldn't be on the bench. If the act of self-defense is justified, the tool used is of little legal importance. That you fired nine 9mm projectiles with one pull of the trigger, vs. fired nine 9mm projectiles with one pull of the trigger, is a non-difference (that's 00 buckshot from a standard shotgun vs. a long burst from a SMG). That you fired shot from an 18.5" barrel vs. a 14.5" barrel also makes no practical legal difference.

The only reason you'll get scrutinized more is that NFA weapons have been demonized, and a smart judge & prosecutor will only press the case to make sure the tools involved were legal. Any that do deem you "guilty the moment you walked into the courtroom" are grossly negligent in their sworn duties.

The prosecution's arguement will be simple and effective; you used a weapon designed for full on combat and therefore were looking for trouble.
Defense's argument is also simple: if I need to exercise deadly force on someone who broke into my home and behaved in a manner threatening my life to a degree that I actually needed to risk killing him, I wanted to make sure I would be the one standing in the courtroom defending my actions, not assuming room temperature - yes indeed it was full on combat. As for "looking for trouble", it was my home and my life - I was NOT unlawfully in someone else's home violating a host of laws and threatening lives.

A suppressor is of no tactical significance
Go fire a .223 round indoors sans earplugs, and get back to us on the "tactical significance".

a good shoot is a good shoot, a bad shoot is a bad shoot.
Bingo. The tool only helps either be more of what it is.

My machine guns would be the last guns I'd go to. They're strictly toys.
Which is why the military & police use them, right?

full-auto may result in larger legal bills.
This is true. I'd rather be paying larger legal bills than increasing my odds of being dead.

Hearing damage is usually caused by prolonged exposure to loud noise. Are you planning on shooting someone in your house on a daily or weekly basis?
As above: fire a single .223 round indoors sans earplugs, then get back to us.

I was too close to the wrong end of a .308 without earplugs once. A single shot messed up my left ear's high frequency perception permanently. It only takes once to cause permanent damage.

in my area, using a NFA item for home defense and conceal carry is not smart, actually its stupid.
Depends on the jurisdiction. Some forbid it, some frown on it, some are happy you won the fight.

I shot my handgun in my home w/o hearing protection and I did not hear the shot nor did my wife.
Psychological processing of the auditory information is different from the physical impact on delicate hearing components (and the latter have a mysterious ability to sometimes put up with extereme noise without damage, but that's not assured).

when I say suppressed I mean a suppressed pistol.
Then say so. My HD gun will soon be a suppressed rifle.

A suppressed pistol on the street will get greater scrutiny, as it falls into a category that, under current social norms, practically cannot be used that way. Nobody is going to carry an M16 around daily for SD, nor are they likely to carry a suppressed pistol - both are simply too long for convenience.

There is no law (your jurisdictional mileage may vary) prohibiting NFA use for self defense. The only problem is it may create circumstantial issues that will take time & money to deal with in court. So long as it's a good shoot you should be fine - evil prosecutors aside.

Regardless of tool used: if you shoot someone, expect arrest and prosecution. NFA items will increase those odds, so it better be a good shoot.
 
Quote:
A suppressor is of no tactical significance

Go fire a .223 round indoors sans earplugs, and get back to us on the "tactical significance".

I have, repeatedly, in live-fire room entry training, with flash bangs and others firing at the same time. You get used to it. Again, at home defense distances, you're not going to conceal your presence from BG's, thus, "no tactical significance". I'm not saying that you shouldn't protect your hearing if at all possible, but if you're using a suppressor to preserve your hearing, it's not for a tactical reason, it's for a medical reason. It's not a bad thing, but neither is it a "tactical" thing.
 
It's a liability thing. If you use any firearm for self defense you are responsible for where the slugs go. A fiream like a Mac-11/9 will empty a full magazine within two seconds. Under stress you probably won't realize how long you held the trigger down. Before you know it, you just turned your wall into swiss cheese and endangered other victim(s) in your home. Add to the fact you don't know how many of these slugs made it outside.

I might get flamed for this. There's no practical use for full-auto in civilian hands. The fun factor is the only real use of full-auto by civilians. I don't have a problem if a civilian owns a full-auto firearm. If you're not well trained with it, then don't use it.
 
I might get flamed for this. There's no practical use for full-auto in civilian hands. The fun factor is the only real use of full-auto by civilians. I don't have a problem if a civilian owns a full-auto firearm. If you're not well trained with it, then don't use it.

I won't flame you, but I will explain why I think you are both right and wrong.

Right becuase 99.99999999% of shooting would never require you to lay supressive fire, and full auto requires a level of high level of mental control while under fire.

Wrong because of this....

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United
States."
-Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the
federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the
United States (P. Ford, 1888)

That has been removed since select fire was banned from the general public in '34.

I can't say that was a 'bad' move back then since they had no forensic evidence and you could just shoot someone and walk away without ever being caught, and the mobsters would just waltz in and light a place up.... But I think things have a changed a little.
 
Superior firepower is just that

However, more responsibility comes with more bullets flying around. Auto gun fine, but have semi-auto mode on it, start defense routine there, panic switch is right there should repeated finger pulls not be doing the trick.

I'm not that ambitious, or rich, regular HD guns for me. My hearing will recover better than a bullet wound.

jeepmor
 
sacp81170a said:
I have, repeatedly, in live-fire room entry training, with flash bangs and others firing at the same time. You get used to it. Again, at home defense distances, you're not going to conceal your presence from BG's, thus, "no tactical significance". I'm not saying that you shouldn't protect your hearing if at all possible, but if you're using a suppressor to preserve your hearing, it's not for a tactical reason, it's for a medical reason. It's not a bad thing, but neither is it a "tactical" thing.

How many of have flashbangs to use for home defense? That temporary hearing loss that we shouldn't worry about may be the difference hearing a police officer(s) announce his presence 2 minutes after the shooting, and a police officer(s) looking for a shooter and a home owner seeing another badguy with a gun. Surviving contact with responding officers should be high on everyone's list of tactical and medical concerns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top