Using an NFA weapon for self-defense?

[Pinned&Recessed]

Hey all!

I handled a 14" 870 at a funshow the other day and think it would be Ideal for CQB work in home defense.

The question that arises is, is it "OK" to use NFA weapons for defense? I mean, assuming all other aspects of the shoot are good, would a Grand Jury or Jury be more inclined to rule against you if it was a Title II firearm as opposed to a regular Title I gun?

There are some NFA items that would be awesome for home defense:

the Serbu Shorty (perfect car gun and a good house gun)
a 14" 12ga ( Great for close work inside hallways)
an 11.5" AR15 (with a collapsing stock, would be VERY maneuverable in house, also would fit better in a small car/trunk)
hell, a suppressed handgun would be awesome just to save your hearing in all situations

Are NFA items basically toys (despite how perfect they are in defense situations) or could they be used for defense without stigma?

 

[Thumper]

How 'bout these apples?

Andrews Firepower rig...makes me smile.

 

[Pinned&Recessed]

Sweet Rig. Too bad Texas has a CHL, meaning I must carry a Handgun.

Otherwise, I'd shell out the bucks for either a MP5K, a Micro Uzi or a Short 12Ga.

 

[Thumper]

I wasn't aware that there was any legislation regarding carrying long guns in my great state.

As the Black Panthers showed last year, you can walk around downtown Houston with a loaded AR and it's completely legal.

 

[Pinned&Recessed]

It's the concealed part that confuses me. Plus, aren't NFA items thier own category? I thought "Long guns" With regard to Texas law meant Title I arms.

Would a Short-Barrelled Shotgun even be a "Long" Gun?

 

[Thumper]

Heck...I don't know...they certainly never covered NFA guns in the class. I've wondered if it would be legit to pack one with all your paperwork and a CHL. Especially like a 93R or something.

I bet El Tejon knows...

 

[boofus]

Under the laws for use of deadly force in the little Texas CHL booklet it said illegally owned NFA items could not be used in self defense. I asked the CHL instructor what about legally owned items and he said as long as you got the paperwork from the ATF it was lawful.

But it doesn't really matter what the law says. It's what the jury thinks. If you hose some home invader with a full-auto USAS-12 a scummy attorney and unsympathetic jury could still find you guilty even if you got an ATF tax stamp.

 

[Thumper]

But it doesn't really matter what the law says. It's what the jury thinks. If you hose some home invader with a full-auto USAS-12 a scummy attorney and unsympathetic jury could still find you guilty even if you got an ATF tax stamp

Heck, that applies even if you whack 'em with a cinder block.

So, your instructor said legal NFA stuff is legit if you have your CHL here?

 

[CleverNickname]

The CHL law only covers handguns. Other firearms are legal to carry in Texas w/o a CHL, as long as the firearm doesn't meet Texas' definition of a handgun. In my non-lawyerly opinion, some guns that are defined as AOWs by federal law might be defined as pistols under Texas law, and therefore illegal to carry w/o a CHL.

But as to the original question, there's no legal prohibition on using title II weapons for self-defense. Legal use is legal use. Now, it may open you up to more liability in a civil suit, depending on who's in the jury. However, as far as I know this is all conjecture, because I've never seen a reference to any private citizen anywhere in the US using a legally owned title II weapon for self-defense, where the fact that it was a title II weapon was brought up in a resulting civil suit. If there was such a case, I'd be interested in knowing about it.

 

[racenutz]

I remember reading an article written by Mas Ayoob saying that the most defensible firearms & load is the one your local law enforcement uses. Basically you could say that since the Police are experts on dealing with the same kind of human scum, you followed their lead & used what they use. So IMHO if your local PD use MP5's you would be safe in using the same.

The only caveat would be being able to account for all the rounds fired & if an innocent bystander were hit & killed, you might by facing manslaughter charges.

 

[clubsoda22]

if you open up with 33 ity bitty cans of whoop@$$ from your glock 18C at 1300rpm, i'd say you should be accountable for where they go. as for the registered sawed off shotty for a HD gun, i see no problem there. 10 to 1 your PD has short barreled shotties.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

There's nothing illegal about using a NFA firearm in self-defense and several magazine "experts" claim you might make yourself more liable in court by using one.

The question is whether your willing to gamble on losing your NFA "toy" after the shooting. The LEOs will take the gun as evidence during the investigation and there are numerous instances of folks not getting their guns back, even if cleared. While SBSs and AOWs don't cost all that much, could you imagine having one of your $10,000+ subguns hauled to the evidence locker?

Besides, is a 14" shotgun really easier to handle for home defense than one with an 18" barrel?

 

[Dr.Rob]

Sawed offs/sub guns are forbidden by Colorado's CCW law, but if you paid the tax... I really don't see why you couldn't use one for "homeland security". (Meaning a sawed-off).

 

[semf]

Thumper
where can I find a link to the company that makes that rig. I saw on at a show years ago with a over/under and spares on the off side. And have been wanting one ever since. I'm thinking of a Win 1300 sawed down to the extreme. That rig would be perfect.

 

[Kobun]

In Ayoobs articles, the cases where rightfull self defence turns into the victim ending up in prison, Ayoob says to use "conventional" guns and ammo, as anything else can lead to a conviction.

Anyone notice how he also says that the defendant never got through to the court that the gun or ammunition used wasn't unsafe, and often came to a plead with the prosecution?

I don't think its the type of gun you use, or what you use in it, but what you know about it.

If one finds oneself in the situation as a defendant, make sure your lawyer understands his job, and to get all the facts through to the court.

semf, check out andrews custom leather

 

[George Hill]

As much as I want to disagree with Ayoob on this one - he is unfortunately correct according to case studies. There are only a very few cases where such an unconventional weapon was used in a documented shooting where the victem/shooter got off scott-free and was able to keep his weapon.

 

[El Tejon]

Leaving aside the "toys" comment (how can you mock my children?), I thank you for Title I/II. Ahhhh.

IME, doing what I do, a clean shoot is a clean shoot, more so criminally. However, brasshopper, Problem #2 has many heads, and you do not address the civil or administrative ramifications. With all the variables in the stew, hard to issue a bright-line rule.

Yes, there are examples of individuals using NFA weapons in self-defense and being cleared of all criminal charges, however, remember, every bullet has a lawyer attached to it. More rounds down range, more exposure to potential liability, see Rule #4.

Thumper, okey-doke here, but depends on state law and how Tejas defines handgun via it's CHL statute.

 

[Aikibiker]

I recall there being a case back in the 60's here in FL where some guy with a legally owned machine gun killed an intruder. No charges filed and I don't think anyone had thought of suing people for killing criminals at the time.

FL specifically forbids CCW of a machine gun, everything else is fine as long as you can conceal it.

I would personally like something suppressed for home defense. I would hate to lose my hearing while safeguarding my life. It would annoy the cat less too.

 

[Kenneth Lew]

I would not do it.

 

[Bigjake]

a glock 18, however ugly, would make an awesome CCW piece....

 

[Pinned&Recessed]

Thanks for all the replies so far. I'm not too concerned with using a select-fire weapon for defense, despite how badarse it would be to ventilate a goblin 30 times in 2 seconds.

I'm really interested in short rifles/shotguns, which have been pretty well addressed, and suppressors, which have not.

As I see it, a SBR or SBSG could be defended as no different from a Title I verison of the same arm, except that it has a shorter barrel. A truly arbitrary measurement at best.

But a suppressor wouldseem to be harder to defend. I can imagine the dirtbag lawyer now:

"The defendant used a SILENCER!!! The favored tool of assassins, drug dealers and hit men. You've all seen Goodfellas and Miami Vice right? No law-abiding regular citizen NEEDS a SILENCER. No, he wanted to emulate professional KILLERS and MURDERERS as he murdered innocent Tyrone, who only wanted to rape his wife."

I REALLY want a suppressor for my 9mm or my Mak, but think it would be too hard to defend in court if I ever need to use it.

And to think, at one time in our nation's history, not using a suppressor was considered rude and inconsiderate to others.

 

[Moparmike]

If you wanted to really ventilate a perp, you could always use a full-auto belt-fed shottie with 00buck. If 30 9mm's will ventilate, how well will 72 .36 caliber balls ventilate?