Would You Carry a Nazi marked Gun?

[gopguy]

No for several reasons. The age of the gun. It may be in good working order but the parts are aged and may well break at the wrong time . With the FN made pistols, especially the HP-35 you have to remember the stories that the workers sometimes attempted to sabotage the guns by not heat treating the parts that needed it.

I have no issue with the Nazi markings on the gun, but you may have to use the gun for a defensive shooting. Imagine if you get some zealot prosecutor who then plays on the emotion of the jury and portrays you as someone who must have Nazi sympathies, since you carried one of their dated arms...There are better choices to carry.

 

[brighamr]

Not to hi-jack, but given the differences of opinion, I have a question for those who woudn't carry a weapon based on it's label/history:

What weapon do you carry? It can't be an FN 5 and 7, or a g17, or any glock for that matter. The glocks are plastic and go through metal detectors; according to the previously stated assumptions, the juries would go wild at even the mention of a plastic gun. The 5x7 is armor piercing. The .45ACP is too big a round, like you are looking for trouble. The hi-cap 9mms are too many rounds, like you are looking to take on a gang. The .357 and .44 are way too powerful (Dirty Harry). The .38spc is the "saturday night special" round, made specifically for bar-room murders.

These are generalized statements, stemming from anti-propaganda, but I'm curious... where do you draw the line between "It's politically correct to carry" and "the jury is going to convict no matter what the evidence if this is carried"?

Please don't take this post offensively, I am asking a serious question.

 

[LA Rondo]

I don't see why anyone would want to even own one of those to begin with.

Except in the situation where I was the soldier who overcame the enemy combatant and was able to seize his weapon.

Any other personal association with this type of firearm bares any grounds or platform, in my view.

 

[john917v]

Along the lines of what Supernaut was saying, we drive Japanese cars, watch Japanese TVs, from the same nation that bombed Pearl Harbor. so why not shoot a Nazi gun? To me, it is like saying guns are bad, and people who fire them are too. Let's say the nazi guns are melted down, and reforged, then you will have the same material in a bumper, or whatever else it is made into. Same stuff.

 

[ronaldbeal]

reply to Brighamr:
First, there is a much more emotional reaction with Nazis, and other well known hate groups. The association with the other guns you mention is more technical than emotional. It is far easier to disprove a technical misconception than an emotional one. A good defense lawyer can have every cop that testifies indicate they carry a Glock or similar pistol with 9mm or larger rounds, etc. It is easy to compare cartridge sizes. Pretty pictures and technical data can dispel myths about caliber and penetration etc... But all the pictures, graphs, and testimonies in the world may not dispel a notion that a shooting was really compelled by hate, and not self defense when the jury stares at a swastika on the gun.

My $0.02
RB

 

[Matt-J2]

Brighamr, there's a bit of difference there. Any of you examples, there's a real good chance the prosecutor will have to explain them. They'll have to try and convince the jury that X ammo is bad. They won't have to explain the Nazis.
I have no idea if it would actually matter. I'd probably not carry it though. Unless I happened to be Jewish, in which case, it would amuse me no end to carry it.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

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

The most compelling reason is that there are many more suitable firearms for that purpose. The only two "Nazi" guns I ever had (I don't have them anymore and they were both poorly refinished and therefore not worth much as collectors items) were a AC44 P-38 and an Astra 600. Neither would be my choice for a self defense gun, although i wouldn't have hesitated using them if that was all I had; but since they weren't all I had, and I got rid of them before others...well you see where I'm going with it. There are better guns with better sights, better triggers, better metallurgy, better calibers (so no Mauser HSC or Walther PPK) that I would use for SD.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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

Wal, hail, Tribal, I carry a gun that was made in Noo Yawk City (a Kimber.)

 

[19-3Ben]

Along the lines of what Supernaut was saying, we drive Japanese cars, watch Japanese TVs, from the same nation that bombed Pearl Harbor. so why not shoot a Nazi gun?

I find this logic very faulty. Don't get me wrong, I said I WOULD carry the gun. But I don't think this is a good reason. It's one thing to buy a product from a country with which we were once at war. The guys president and CEO of Sony are not the guys who were in charge of the Batan death march. Nor are the heads of BMW, MB, or VW the same guys (although the companies are the same) who were making tanks for the Germans in WW2.

That particular gun on the other hand, WAS built by and for the exact force we were fighting. It would be more akin to watching ESPN on Hirohito's actual TV, than a modern day Sony.

It's very different to have a product from a country we once fought, than to have the product that was built by and for that specific evil force.

That said, I think it's Nazi history makes it even cooler, and the sense of irony is awesome. as I said earlier in the thread, hell yeah carry it!!!

 

[CWL]

My pistol of choice is the anti-Nazi gun, the M1911. Being that mine is custom-built and there is none other exactly like it, it goes against everything that National Socialism stands for.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Although no longer politically correct, taking enemy weapons as trophies is an ancient and honorable custom. Why should I not use a weapon taken from yesterday's enemy to deal with today's threat?

 

[Joe Demko]

Because if you aren't the one who took it, it's not your trophy and, therefore, not an honorable symbol of your warrior accomplishment.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Then it's just a good used gun.

 

[SuperNaut]

I find this logic very faulty...

...It's very different to have a product from a country we once fought, than to have the product that was built by and for that specific evil force.

Sure, it is different, but only due to the fact that the comparisons are different.

But as far as the logic is concerned: Since we are abstracted both temporally and ideologically from the NAZI regime, any moral components attached to objects from that regime are also abstracted. So morally, buying a product made by NAZI's or supporting a company founded by NAZI's is a moral abstraction and therefore both examples would be morally equal.

Purely my opinion.

 

[BlindJustice]

Not all Luftwaffe ( Air Force ) or soldiers in the Vermacht ( Army ) were members of the Nazi party, most were not I believe. The SS divisions, however, were and bought into the evil stuff. The weapons, even those that had been used in WWI, like P-08s were stamped with the Nazi acceptance prpof marks.. If the gun had an SS Death head stamp on it
I'd put it in the safe. FWIW - Hardly any of the Top Aces of the LUftwaffe
joined the Nazi party Goering once asked his commander of the fighters
after the loss of the Battle of Britain what he needed to fight the allies.
Adolph Galland, youngest General up to that point in the war, replied

"Give me a Squadron of Spitfires"

As far as carrying it, well, I have a CZ 75B I'm most comfrotable with
so it's a mot point.

I know a couple, Laura and Louie who inherited some handguns. Louie's
father died suddenly some month's back. His father never talked of his handguns. They are getting, as soon as they get a safe, since they have teens, the following....
With Nazi proof marks,
2 - P-38s, a P-08 Luger - looks like it was WWI then WWII as well, also
a Polish Viz Radom
ALso
Colt COmmander 60s prod.
SUper Blackhawk .44 Mag late 60s
and a Berretta Tomcat.

I told them it's a good collection of 9mms used by the
Axis in the euro theater of WWII. If they had any interest
in making it more complete to add a Nazi proofed BHP as well
as a Ingalls ( Canadian buuilt ) BHP as well as a WWII build
1911 Colt or Rem Rand/'Ithaca for the major pistols
used in the ETO during WWII. Oh, they had a Webley in the
colection as well.

I also advised to take a basic gun handling course for the
both of them - and told them the COmmander was the best for
SD/HD if they needed to choose and use one of these as a shooter.

It looked like the Dad had picked these up in the 50s/60s considering
his age.

I can't emagine having a son and not showing him the collection - the
Dad wasn't old enough for WWII, but might have been a Korean War
vet. dunnoh.

As far as being in court afterwards, I'd rather be judged by 12 than
buried by 6, eh?

Randall

 

[Joe Demko]

Then it's just a good used gun.

Care to gamble your freedom and finances on being able to convince all those folks from the criminal (and possibly) civil legal systems of that? Or might it not be more prudent to just carry something sans Nazi marks?
There're enough ways for the system to thoroughly screw you over without supplying it with additional possibilities.

In the couple-three decades following WWII, there were enough bring-backs and surplus guns in active circulation that nobody thought twice about them. That was decades ago. Today, Nazi guns are collectable and TPTB are not unlikely to wonder why you are carrying such a piece instead of a newer (read: better) piece. Maybe those Nazi markings have some personal appeal to you? Hmmm?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Care to gamble your freedom and finances on being able to convince all those folks from the criminal (and possibly) civil legal systems of that?

Are you saying that by carrying a war surplus gun, I can turn a legal case of self-defense into murder?

If it's a good shoot, and a justified use of self-defense, it's a good shoot. The model of gun, or the markings on it won't change that.

Can anyone cite a case of a good shoot where the shooter was convicted of a crime because he had a gun with Nazi markings? Or a suit where the markings on the gun decided the outcome?

 

[SuperNaut]

Deja vu

Isn't this the stuff we discussed in the Punisher Grips thread?

 

[Joe Demko]

Nope. Not saying you'll get convicted of murder at all. I'm saying your trip through the legal wringer may end up being more difficult and expensive than it needed to be. I'm sure that you are, personally, a good and ethical man who would never murder anybody. However, I'm not sure that all self-defense shootings in which you might be involved will be guaranteed to be uniformly clearcut and unambiguous with you spotlighted as the good guy. Life is often unfair like that.
Do what you want. I just don't believe in borrowing grief.

 

[LA Rondo]

I'd probably not carry it though. Unless I happened to be Jewish, in which case, it would amuse me no end to carry it.

I don't understand how the fact of being Jewish would create such amusement, unless the Jewish person was never directly affected and/or suffered from ethnical prosecution, in which case the thought is only a quick idea.

While on the other side, if one had actually experienced the Shoah while being a victim, I hardly believe that such an authentic artifact of weaponry would cause amusement, through ownership.

 

[LA Rondo]

Not all Luftwaffe ( Air Force ) or soldiers in the Vermacht ( Army ) were members of the Nazi party, most were not I believe.

That's absolutely correct.

BTW, it's spelled 'Wehrmacht'.

I don't think there are "Nazi" marks on WWI weaponry, since the Nazi party came to power in 1933.

 

[KI.W.]

Only: certainly.

 

[TexasRifleman]

'm jewish. I'd carry it just for the irony. Me relying on a Nazi made gun to protect my life. If that wouldn't be the biggest "up yours" to Hitler, I dunno what tops it.

Very true! Nothing says "You Lost" better than taking their weapons for your own use.

 

[psyopspec]

I wouldn't carry it, because of the possible ramifications in a courtroom after using it in SD. I know it's just an object. I realize you shoot it well, and that makes it a good tool for SD. But what I, or any other member of this board thinks about you doesn't matter. The question is, what will the jury think? This is not a question I've ever contended with when selecting a defense weapon, but you're dealing with a symbol that can cause a universal knee-jerk reaction like few others.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I wouldn't carry it, because of the possible ramifications in a courtroom after using it in SD

What are the "ramifications in a courtroom?"

Can anyone cite a case where letigimate self-defense was deemed a crime because the person defending himself used a war surplus pistol?

Can anyone cite a civil case where this issue even came up, let alone decided the case?