Using machine guns for self-defense

[Thernlund]

922(o) will not be repealed in our lifetime.

It could, maybe.

I think that if it ever is, it'll be based on mostly on the premise of freedom and not guns per se.

The trick is to build enough case law in other areas that directly contradicts 922(o). Once you have a pile of case law, then you buckle down and take on 922(o). But you do it in such as way as to take on a bunch of other laws too.

Hey... if Hughes can do it, so can we, eh?


-T.

 

[.cheese.]

nobody posted the page number yet? I have to remember to post it later when I have the book.

 

[TexasRifleman]

1. Well, if you are going to court (either civil or criminal) someone doesn't think the shoot is "good".

Not so.

If you shoot someone and they die you WILL go before the Grand Jury whether anyone thinks the shoot is bad or not (in Texas)

You could have 100% backing from law enforcement, the public, and the prosecutors and you STILL go to the Grand Jury in Texas if there's a death.

 

[hankdatank1362]

If you shoot someone and they die you WILL go before the Grand Jury whether anyone thinks the shoot is bad or not (in Texas)

You could have 100% backing from law enforcement, the public, and the prosecutors and you STILL go to the Grand Jury in Texas if there's a death.

True, but isn't that only for a pretrial hearing? If everyone is on your side, and the facts support it, you'll just end up being no billed.

Or are you referring to an actual criminal trial?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Or are you referring to an actual criminal trial?

No, you will go before the Grand Jury regardless. There is ALWAYS the chance that the Grand Jury will indict, even of the prosecutor doesn't want it.

The idea was proposed that if you are in court it's because someone thinks it was a "bad shoot". That's simply not so.

 

[Thernlund]

He means the Grand Jury. You mean a criminal trial.

In that regard, you're both right as it pertains to the different subject on which you speak.

In many states (not all), a Grand Jury hearing is the SOP after a shooting.

A criminal trial, on the other hand, doesn't always happen. And as you point out, someone must have thought it was a bad shoot if you end up there. Doesn't necessarily make it bad though, eh?


-T.


EDIT:

The idea was proposed that if you are in court it's because someone thinks it was a "bad shoot". That's simply not so.

As a side note, a Grand Jury hearing doesn't require the presence of the defendant, and actually, the defendant and his counsel rarely attend.

 

[Blakenzy]

I think that the overall perception of your actions will be heavily influenced by your round count. No problem if you keep your shots well placed and few. The problem with using an FA is that your round count will tend to be above par, and your shot placement will most likely be less than pin-point. That could paint you as a bloodthirsty, reckless shooter in the eyes of some.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

I will use the tool at hand to defend myself PERIOD. be it a .22 deringer or a 4 gauge shotgun.

Look at what Mr. Fadden went through

The prosecutor (If I remember right) had an ax to grind with SD situations. A anti DA is all needed to ruin you day.

Oh and 922o is going down.

 

[VARifleman]

922(o) will not be repealed in our lifetime.
1) 90%+ of public isn't concerned that 2% of Americans want easier access to heavy weaponry.
2) There is no support in Congress. Many Congressional members propose bills they KNOW won't get signed into law. They do it to raise awareness, to build support, as talking points etc. Nobody has proposed legislation to scrap the NFA.
3) The colonies and early United states did maintain records of weapons to assist with formation of militias and to ensure towns had sufficent arms to be "called up".
4) The antis will argue it works. Registered MG have only been used in 2 crimes since 1934. 2 out of millions.

Rather than waste time and tresure Gura is going after thing he believes he can win.

I think we have a real shot in overturning the 1986 ban by using NFA as evidence. "MG made in 1987 are no more dangerous than those in 1985. The NFA has done a good job keeping MG out of hands of criminals. Thus there is no need for 1986 ban just make all MG subject to regulation as done for 1985 and prior weapons."

Happiness, your post makes no sense as 922(o) is the 1986 machine gun ban amendment.

As for my thoughts on it, we got 5-4 on getting the ban on having a loaded gun in one's own home, and owning a handgun, so why the heck do you think it is reasonable to expect 5-4 to remove a ban on machine guns? Especially considering that they spelled out machine guns are not affected in the opinion?

 

[GEM]

What I was saying was this:

1. Folks on the Internet say if it is a 'good' shoot, you won't end up in front of a jury, so don't worry about ammo or guns, etc.

2. If you do end up in court , in front of judge and jury, the process and people involved had an end result that didn't think your 'good shoot' was good.

The nuances are important but I was talking about the blanket statement I quoted. Thus, the blanket statement is an Internet cliche of little value.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Happiness, your post makes no sense as 922(o) is the 1986 machine gun ban amendment.

As for my thoughts on it, we got 5-4 on getting the ban on having a loaded gun in one's own home, and owning a handgun, so why the heck do you think it is reasonable to expect 5-4 to remove a ban on machine guns? Especially considering that they spelled out machine guns are not affected in the opinion?

My bad I thought 922(o) dealt with NFA not the '86 ban.

I may be mistaken but my understanding is related to MG there are two issues:
A) NFA regulating such items as Class III and all the issues with registration and purchase as well as stamp tax.
B) The 1986 ban.

I DO think the 1986 ban can go away.
I don't think the NFA will ever go away.
I do think if courts rule that the government can't take the RKBA (just like they can't charge a tax or fee to vote) then the $200 stamp tax and 11% excise tax could be repealed.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Voerelover]

Machinegun for home protection is a very bad idea right up there with special handloads! Remember every bullett you shoot has a lawyer attached to it! And you better believe in a court of law they are going to see it as you want to kill someone if you use a machinegun. You would be better off to use a revolver with standard factory loads.
Steve

 

[memphisjim]

Sadly If You Fully Auto On A Bg You Are Screwed

 

[revjen45]

One aspect of the question I have not seen mentioned: whatever gun you use to shoot a BG and no matter how "good" the shoot, the authorities will take your gun and you will probably never see it again. Do you want to see a gun worth $15-20K or more go down the toilet? My $237 Mossy Persuader can get 96 #00s in the air as fast as I can pump and pull the trigger, and a pump shotgun doesn't get a jury's knickers in knot like a MG does.

 

[TexasRifleman]

One aspect of the question I have not seen mentioned: whatever gun you use to shoot a BG and no matter how "good" the shoot, the authorities will take your gun and you will probably never see it again.

In the cases that are best known that has NOT happened. In all 3 of the commonly cited cases the gun was returned to its owner.

Remember there have been VERY few of these cases and for the most part they are well known in the NFA community.

Machinegun for home protection is a very bad idea right up there with special handloads!

One more of those Internet rumor things.

Please cite a case where the use of handloads played a part in the proceedings, changing a good shoot to a bad shoot, or portrayed the shooter as "out to kill" simply because he used handloads. Even one case would be fine.

 

[bdickens]

The proper role of a machine gun is in laying down suppressive fire. I can't really imagine a realistic and likely self-defense scenario that would involve the necessity of laying down suppressive fire. the whole idea just smells a bit too 27 ninjas to me.