Would You Carry a Nazi marked Gun?

[Tribal]

Here's the thing: I have a Nazi-proofed WWII "FN" Hi-Power and it's seriously the most comfortably firearm I've ever held. It shoots well and is in good working order but has enough wear that it's not worth anything special. The prior owner had it as a bring-back from WWII but left it sitting in a holster for several decades. I've also got a BHP Mk. III, but it just doesn't have that same perfect balance as the WWII one.

If it were you, caliber and model aside, would you carry a Nazi-made gun you knew to be in good working order?

 

[jc89]

Sure, why not? It's not the gun that's evil, anyways.

 

[buzz_knox]

If you've got a legitimate reason to carry it (i.e. it works better for you than the other), then go for it. If someone ever asks about why you carry a Nazi gun, simply state that you are redeeming it from its former evil use by putting it to good use.

 

[Joe Demko]

If I, personally, had been the one who captured it in war, yes. Otherwise, no.

 

[SuperNaut]

Nobody seems to mind driving around VW's or using IG Farben products, so why not?

 

[Deer Hunter]

"Nazi guns" were used by the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.

 

[ScottyT]

As long as it goes bang every time you pull the trigger and you can shoot it comfortably, go for it.

Guns aren't evil, but evil men do use guns occasionally.

 

[fletcher]

It's not like the gun chose to be Nazi proofed. I'd carry it.

 

[ronwill]

I concur with what the others are saying. The thing to remember is that it's not the tool but the bearer that is responsible.

 

[ronaldbeal]

Use... range gun, safe queen, plinker... yes.
Self defense... only if there was no other alternative. Imagine a DA using the proof marks to imply you have less than honorable intentions. Especially if the bad guy is an ethnic minority.
just my $0.02
RB

 

[threefeathers]

Absolutely. If it is your daily carry piece and you know how to use it. Many of there were carried by Jews in Israel 1948 on.

 

[ravencon]

No, I wouldn't. My reason has nothing to do with ideology.

If you end up using the gun in a self-defense situation would you want a "Nazi gun" being presented to the jury, especially if the person you shot is of a different race or ethnicity than you are. The unfortunate reality is that we live in a hyper PC, race obsessed society.

 

[buzz_knox]

Self defense... only if there was no other alternative. Imagine a DA using the proof marks to imply you have less than honorable intentions. Especially if the bad guy is an ethnic minority.

There'd be a greater risk of it being introduced to show state of mind or intent if he'd made the markings himself. But the easy counter to the argument is that it's a weapon he can use more effectively (and thus more safely for all concerned but the bad guy). The fact that it happened to have a Nazi proof doesn't say anything about him except maybe he wants to redeem the weapon.

 

[jlbraun]

Imagine a DA using the proof marks to imply you have less than honorable intentions.

Exactly. If you really want to carry it, have the swastika overstamped with לעולם לא שוב (Never again!)

 

[RyanM]

Only two people brought up the court thing?

Where are all the people that tell you not to use handloaded ammo?

Anyway, you should always carry the gun you're most comfortable with, regardless of everything else.

 

[ndh87]

I wouldnt do it just because i'd hate to put the wear on a good condition collectible piece.

I also agree with ravencon.

 

[Joe Demko]

But the easy counter to the argument is that it's a weapon he can use more effectively (and thus more safely for all concerned but the bad guy).

Which do you think will emotionally resonate more strongly with jurors who aren't necessarily pro-gun: the DA's argument or your counter argument?
When you get your *** caught in the legal wringer (whether you were in the right or not) you are suddenly at the mercy of a whole bunch of other people's emotions.

 

[sithanas]

Yes - I'd love to send Hitler rolling in the grave knowing that a Jew was carrying a weapon meant for his "master race".

 

[FuzzyBunny]

I would not take the chance of it being in police custody with no care.

They don't make them anymore so yes, it is a collectors item.

 

[Dravur]

Sure.

unless the gun is being haunted by Hitler's ghost, why not?

 

[Gord]

I'm not one of the guys who tries to invent ways a DA would pin you to the wall in a SD shooting (remember, only use FMJ ammo like the Geneva Convention sez, and load rock salt into your shotgun for the first round so that maybe you can just scare him away instead of having to kill him, and always fire a warning shot, and...) but it seems immediately evident to me, personally, that carrying around a Nazi-stamped firearm for self-defense use is not going to look good in the eyes of a jury. FWIW, I feel the same way about things like Punisher grips on 1911s.

I'm willing to bet that somebody somewhere has used a Nazi-proofed gun to defend themselves with no legal repercussions at some point in recent history, but I'm also willing to bet it happened several decades ago. Since then, the PC tide has come in in a big way.

When prosecution and defense alike are complaining nationwide of juries that are influenced in their verdicts by preconceived notions they get from watching teevee shows, would you really trust 'em not to go straight for the vitriol, especially, if others have noted, your attacker was of an ethnic minority?

 

[Joe Demko]

Exactly. If you were the one who had personally captured the weapon, it'd be a case of "elderly combat veteran defends himself with war trophy."
If you bought it, OTOH, it becomes a case of "Nazi wannabe murders misguided minority yoot."
I might_might_consider carrying such a gun if I had inherited it from a close relative who had personally captured it in war; then you could theoretically use the "I was carrying Dad's gun that he gave me on his deathbed" defense. All things considered, though, I think I'd confine it to being a collector's piece.

 

[CajunBass]

I wouldn't but only for the same reason I wouldn't use a Confederate LeMatt for self-defense.

It's more valuable as a collectors item.

 

[Prince Yamato]

The fact that it happened to have a Nazi proof doesn't say anything about him except maybe he wants to redeem the weapon.

Honestly, most people aren't going to see it this way. They're going to think, "he was trying to macho," or "he's a closet racist." You will be on the news as the guy who "shot someone with a Nazi gun."

Seeing as the gun has historical value, a jury might question why you didn't leave it in a safe. Seeing as there are newly made high-powers on the market, they would question why you didn't buy a similar weapon without the proof marks.

It's kind of like getting a non-reversed swastika tattoo, like those people who are trying to take back the swastika for good are doing. Your intentions may be good, but people who look at you still think, "Nazi." Sure, you can say, "well, they're ignorant!"--- but they are the majority.

 

[buzz_knox]

When you get your *** caught in the legal wringer (whether you were in the right or not) you are suddenly at the mercy of a whole bunch of other people's emotions.

I've actually had more judges act out of emotion than juries. The jury was swayed by logic rather than emotion. The judges wanted their way and they worked to achieve it, at the expense of the law, the facts, and justice in general. That's what happens when 12 people work together on an issue rather than 1.

The question Tribal is ultimately getting at is whether we should use the weapons that work better for us or find something else that works as well but doesn't have the liability. That brings up the question of whether that will ever happen? How long will it take?

Is it more reckless to carry a weapon we know is inferior for us because of the symbol, or carry the weapon that is better and deal with the symbol?