Tax stamp Class III for self defense?

[Father Knows Best]

I shot my handgun in my home w/o hearing protection and I did not hear the shot nor did my wife. I believe it was the adrenaline that blocked it. I have spoken to quite a few people who have shot their firearms in self defense and they, too did not hear the shot/s.

Good point. There are plenty of accounts of people who fired their guns in "adrenaline dump" situations, and who could not recall afterwards having heard the shot. Your body does strange things when the "fight or flight" reaction kicks in.

A more familiar example is hunting. Any deer hunters here? If you've ever shot a deer, think back to that experience -- particularly the first few times. Most people shooting their first deer, and some people for almost every shooting, report afterwards that they did not actually hear the shot, and did not feel the recoil of the gun.

Finally, I'll note that in my experience, few handguns are what I would call truly "loud." I guess it all depends on your frame of reference. I fire .45ACP and .44 Special handguns all the time, and I'm around others who are firing them. While I use hearing protection almost all the time, I have heard them go off in close proximity without my "ears on." I don't recommend it as a general practice, but I also don't think it is that big of a deal. Now my 44 magnums, on the other hand, are LOUD. Just about any carbine-length rifle or home defense shotgun is also MUCH louder than a pistol in common calibers like 9mm, .40S&W or .45ACP. I can see a compelling argument for a suppressor on a 16" AR-15, for example, both for sound and flash suppression, but I don't see any particular need for one on a 1911 or other typical handgun.

 

[jackal1209]

After being in the law enforcement profession for fifteen years, and now working in the court system, I have seen all aspects of this question played out.
Most importantly, consider this. If you are involved in a shooting with one of these weapons, you will be faced with explaining your "Rambo actions" in a civil
suit which will most assurably follow, even though it was ruled a good shoot.
Is that something you want to explain to a civil jury? NOT ME!

 

[Correia]

There is too much broad generalizing in this thread to get any sort of coherant answer.

There is a massive difference between carrying on your person (CCW) and using a gun at home.

If the bad guy comes to me, in my home, and I am legally justified in shooting him according to my state's laws, they are going to be hard pressed to show me as a Rambo. If you live in one of those states that suck that bad, then I have pity for you, but don't assume that all of us live in criminal paradise.

To the guy who says he has touched off plenty of flashbangs and 5.56 indoors with no problem, and that there is not tactical advantage, whatever. I've done that also. Sometimes you don't hear the shot. Othertimes it smashes into your ear like a freaking sledgehammer, jiggles the jelly in your eyeballs, and all you can hear is a high pitched hum for the next two days. Every situation is different.

Where does this assumption come from (on a gun board non-the-less) that if you have a full auto capable weapon you are going to go to automatic suppresive fire mode and spray thousands of rounds indiscriminately and kill the entire neighborhood? This sounds like the antis bleating about "assault weapons".

And yes, some of us here do know how to use full auto just fine, thanks.

And it is SBR or SBS, no SOSG. And if you have used an SBR or SBS in tight quarters, then you know how handy they are in comparison to a 16" or 18" gun.

My SBR has a 10.5 barrel, and with a suppresor, overall length is near that of a standard 16" gun. However it is much nicer to shoot indoors. Hearing damage is permenant and cumulative. It never gets better. Everytime you damage your hearing, it is that much worse. It is nothing more than machismo to brag about how you shot unsuppresed indoors many times and it doesn't bug you. Yes, in most instances you keep going just fine, but your hearing is now damaged.

Money wise, I'm not in to a suppressed SBR much more than many people are into a fancy carry gun. There is a huge price difference between an SBR and a pre-86 machine gun.

 

[ctdonath]

Bump that. Paraphrasing to counter the sillyness I'm hearing here.

Given the range of jurisdictions and personal scenarios involved, sweeping statements often don't work. Accurately dumping a quarter-mag into a home invader in rural Georgia can get you a pat on the back; not leaping out a second-story window when faced with a home invader can get you prosecuted in NY (ok, that's overstating it a bit...but not much...). If your jurisdiction objects, so be it - just don't criticize what works fine elsewhere.

If the perp's estate sues me for a good shoot, I'll sue right back 10x for him voluntarily placing me in a "kill or be killed" situation - right down to cleaning the mess, psychological damage (what's the phrase I'm looking for...), $1.50 ammo costs, and a few million in punative damages.

If you've fired numerous 5.56 rounds indoors, plus flashbangs, without hearing protection you've got permanent hearing damage - period. I'm not gonna quibble about whether going progressively deaf - short or long term - is a tactical issue or not.

The anti-NFA comments I'm reading amount to Brady Bunch rhetoric. Yes I've been trained on full-auto (Uzi and MP5), and have passed the DEA qualifications for it. Such guns are legal in many states, and many jurisdictions don't really care what you use so long as everything is legal. Any "freak out and kill lots of bystanders" BS is little different than the same nonsense marketed about semi-autos.

I've got a SOSG type doing HD duty right now. Yes it's entirely legal. No it's not optimal, hence a pending switch to SBR. Indoors, shorter is better (so long as length delivers adequate velocity) especially when a silencer is added.

MGs aside, cost of NFA for HD is reasonable for those of average means. Paperwork is mildly obnoxious but doable (where it is doable at all). Taxes are a pain, but thanks to inflation cost about the same as a few dinners out.

I have yet to see any justification here that "NFA isn't smart for HD" that doesn't amount to Brady Bunch rhetoric. Comments about suppressive fire betray ignorance.

 

[Phenom]

The only thing I said was if you're not trained with it, then don't use it. If you had the proper training and enough training to use it on instinct then go ahead. Put it this way, if you have a CCW permit would you not train regularly with what you're carrying?

 

[Ron James]

These are the facts, use of a NFA firearm in self defence will result in a charge. Like or not it will happen. In the aftermath, during the civil trial,
you will not be able to prove you did not use excessive force when you murdered a poor soul , who by the way only had a firearm in his hand because he saw you with a machine gun. Even if you are cleared in a criminal court, you will lose every thing you worked all your life for, in a civil trial.

 

[MudPuppy]

What was the question?

Oh yeah, "am I allowed to use a legal FA in self defense?"

I think the answer is yes, but I'm not sure.

Who is saying that "it is illegal to use an FA in self defense"?

 

[PvtPyle]

My take on it. I have recommended to people that they do not use NFA weapons for self defense, UNLESS you can verbalize in court why you shot him, and why you chose the NFA item.

Suppressors are a very good item for self defense. If you have put any real research into the subject (and can show it in court), you can show that you used the suppressor to reduce the risk of long term hearing loss and so that you could maintain better situational awareness for bad guys and good guys.

As to the SBS or SBR, the loss of velocity can be a benefit when taking into consideration the people in houses around you. Over penetration is bad, another reason why using a rifle firing 55gr rounds it better than a handgun.

As for the judge or jury hanging you out to dry, they will probably try. Around here though, it is less than likely. I for one am not the least bit worried about it.

In my situation I fully plan on using either a suppressed pistol, short barreled M4 with a can, or an MP-5. I am also fully prepaired to illustrate to the court that I am not only well trained in their use in the same manner that LEO's and Military are trained to use them, but also why they were required for this situation. Also taking into consideration that the Assistant Prosecuting Att. for the state is a long tab and his boss has had him around for many years, I dont think it will be much of an effort to show them what the reasoning was.

If you want to use one, just be prepaired to make the best case you can for your use, and be prepaired for them to make you look as bad as they can.

For those who don't see a reason to use one......whatever. To each his own and if it works for you cool. But you can bet that if you break into my house, you had better bring a bunch of friends and a midnight snack. And if you bring a bunch of friends, I will bring a belt fed. And yes, I am quite serious. I will not be outgunned, I will not be at a disadvantage to a criminal.

 

[ctdonath]

[In my home,] I will not be outgunned, I will not be at a disadvantage to a criminal.

Bingo. 'nuff said.

 

[jackal1209]

To each his own, and if you choose to unleash an M-60 on some scumbag in your home, thats your choice, and thank God this is America, and you have that choice. But.... as my old grand daddy told me, you gotta pick your battles, and
thats not one I would choose. I can terminate a scumbag as quick with my XD-45 or my 12ga. pump, and not have to explain to a bleeding heart civil jury why I ambushed, and unloaded a 30 rounder from an MP-5 etc. into him.
Not saying he doesn't deserve it, it just makes common sense to protect yourself on that end too.

 

[Correia]

Jackal, PvtPyle is a fricking surgeon with an MP5.

This whole unload a magazine into the perp is nothing more than regurgitated Brady bunch nonsense that they used during the AWB.

 

[jackal1209]

I'm proud of him.

 

[Phenom]

I have no problem with him using a MP5 then. My only concern is someone using the said MP5 when they're not experianced with it.

 

[Correia]

Same as the Brady argument about people having shotguns, rifles, assault weapons, or handguns.

Everything/everyone requires training.

 

[Phenom]

Damn straight training is required for everything. Would you tell someone who never seen a Indy500 to race one without training. I don't have a problem with anyone having firearms as long as they're not a raging lunatic. Only a fool would do something as reckless as use a firearm for self-defense without training. Could you live with yourself knowing you shot an innocent person? I know I couldn't

 

[ctdonath]

if you choose to unleash an M-60 on some scumbag in your home... unloaded a 30 rounder from an MP-5 etc. into him.

By what sane line of reasoning do you offer up those scenarios? Do you REALLY think anyone supporting NFA HD/SD in this discussion means such things? It's no different that Brady Bunch "blood in the streets" rhetoric about dumping a "30 rounder from an" AR-15 into someone for no good reason.

OF COURSE doing something stupid can get you in trouble and have awful consequences. Stop implying that we would do stupid things in light of sane & reasonable discussions!!!

 

[444]

I could see myself using an NFA weapon for personal defense. If that happens to be the first thing I laid hands on. I know that my 14" 870 is standing right at the front of my safe because it is too short to fit in the safe racks. So, there is a good chance that is what I would use.
I also might use a short AR because they are too short to fit in the racks and are lying on top of the pistols on the safe shelves so they are easy to grab.
Something that is kind of interesting: many of the people on this thread think about NFA weapons as some kind of rare and highly specialized thing that is sitting in a glass case. To others......I would have to purposely change out the uppers on my ARs to NOT have an NFA weapon. I would have to dig through my safe to find a shotgun that ISN'T an NFA weapon. And why would I do that ?
My SMG and suppressed weapons would probably be among the last things that I would grab right before the bolt action .22s. I just don't see the point. A little off topic, but in these SHTF senarios, I probably would leave my SMG in the safe and walk away from it. I consider it nothing but a toy.

I don't know, but I don't think it would be a big deal around here. I think if you were confronted by a home invader and were in legitimate fear for your life, and you shot the guy with a 14" barreled shotgun, I don't think it would make any difference at all. I am not even completely sure that anyone would realize it was something unusual.

 

[jackal1209]

You have your point of view, and I have mine. I'm sorry you took, (or take) everything so literally. I was only making a point.

Ever hear the old saying, "Beating a dead horse"? I think we are there...

 

[Correia]

Strangely, I have yet to see any of the NFA advocates on here use the words "Terminate the scumbag" either.

 

[444]

It is very common to make ones' point by taking the most extreme possible position (no matter how ridiculous) and try to imply that is what the other guy is saying.
It is much more dramatic that way.

 

[PvtPyle]

To each his own, and if you choose to unleash an M-60 on some scumbag in your home, thats your choice, and thank God this is America, and you have that choice

Yes, thankfully it is.

But.... as my old grand daddy told me, you gotta pick your battles, and thats not one I would choose

I guess it is my alpha type personallity, but I that is a battle I would choose to fight. Why should I be affraid to stand up for my rights?

I can terminate a scumbag as quick with my XD-45 or my 12ga. pump, and not have to explain to a bleeding heart civil jury why I ambushed, and unloaded a 30 rounder from an MP-5 etc. into him.

If they make me out to have ambushed an intruder in my home, my lawyers question back to them would be "what was the deceased doing in my clients home?". But your comment about dumping a 30rd mag into him sounds just like the idiots at the Brady center or the moron mom marchers. You really (and very clearly) have no idea how to handle a weapon like this or deploy it in a real world situation. You have obviously seen wayyyy to much TV and think they way they do it in the movies is the way it works in the real world.

If you dont feel comfortable using an NFA piece of equipment on a badguy while trying to defend your life or your loved ones, fine. The fact that you are willing to do it at all is good enough for me. But do not tell me how to take care of myself and mine. I have received the training, the best your tax dollars can buy, and fully intend on using it to my advantage over a badguy who is trying to hurt myself or a loved one. End of story.

 

[Phenom]

I personally think SBRs are very handy items. They're more compact then fullsize rifles and shotguns making them easier to use in homes. What I'm saying is we don't need some Rambo wannabe using a full-auto weapon for defense purposes. The Brady Bunch would have a field day with a Rambo wannabe turning a perp into swiss cheese.

 

[444]

Again with the dramatics.


What if some law abiding home owner encountered a home invader making his way to the home owner's child's bedroom and the home owner used his legallly owned submachine gun with a suppressor and bayonet to put a three round burst into the center of mass of the home invader ?


The home owner used a weapon with which he was familiar and skilled. He used deadly force to counter what he viewed as a threat of deadly force in his own home, but used a measured amount of force carefully and precisely applied.
Why is that so wrong ?
Why do you consider that so much more agressive than firing three quick shots COM from a blackpowder revolver ? Why is this so much more aggressive than hitting the guy 9 times AT ONCE with a load of double ought buck from a shotgun ?
Why do you want to play into the hands of the liberal ? By playing this game you are in effect admitting that there is something inherently evil about the machine gun. The liberal will say, you were using a weapon designed for only one purpose: to kill other people. And you reply, yes, and that is exactly what I used it for.
Don't hide from these clowns. Don't let these clowns dictate your actions and how you live your life. Confront them head on and put them on the defensive. If you believe you are right, then don't accept their philosophy and change your behavior to suit them.

 

[Correia]

The Brady Bunch would have a field day if anybody used a previously banned AWB gun to turn somebody into swiss cheese also. Or a shotgun. Or a rifle. Or a handgun. Or a pointy stick. The Bradyites are ready to swim in blood at the drop of a hat. It doesn't matter where the blood comes from.

Face it, if you live your life in fear of what the Brady Bunch might say, then you will lead a very dull and unfullfilling life.

 

[Phenom]

Try the media Firearms aren't looked at the same way today as they were in the 1920s. I wish the laws were the same as they were in the 1920s.