Aaron Baker
Member
Why would the ATF be involved? We're talking about legally owned NFA firearms. How does their use in this fashion come into a federal agency's jurisdiction?
And what do civil rights have to do with it?
Aaron
NFA Firearms for home defense?
- Thread starter AZ
- Start date
- Status
Why would the ATF be involved? We're talking about legally owned NFA firearms. How does their use in this fashion come into a federal agency's jurisdiction?
And what do civil rights have to do with it?
Aaron
Maverick223
Member
Because using a NFA firearm for defense has a great deal to do with jumping off a cliff?
Again, how does that pertain to the subject?
Johnny_Come_Lately
Member
Just because I can do something, does it really make sense to do it?
Maverick223
Member
How exactly is protecting yourself, your family, and your home with an NFA item (or any other) akin to jumping off a cliff and slandering your neighbor?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
This is an EXTREMELY bad idea. You would be removing/disturbing evidence at a crime scene, and, should the investigation progress to the point of collecting various kinds of trace evidence from the scene, that evidence will not match your story once the can is taken out of your testimony.
Using a silencer may or may not lead to difficulty with prosecutors. Screwing around and playing games with the evidence WILL hurt you. Nothing says "guilt" like some evidence technician turning to an investigator and saying, "Wait a minute, this doesn't add up...he's hiding something..."
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, that's really the question, isn't it? If you're imagining someone defending their home with an MG-42 set up on a tripod in the hallway, I'd probably agree that it doesn't make much sense, and the circumstances of that shooting are going to, rightfully, be investigated with extra scrutiny.
But regarding more common NFA items, what are the benefits? What are the costs?
I, personally, see very -- very -- little benefit in using almost any full-auto weapon for home defense. It just isn't necessary. It isn't better than a common shotgun or a handgun that you are proficient with. (Unless, of course, it is actually THE weapon that you practice with most and are most proficient with. I don't know many (any) shooters who can honestly say that.)
(By that I mean, I can meet or exceed the cyclic rate of some submachine guns with a service sidearm, and put every round into the "A" zone of a target at common defensive distances. Switching to a submachine gun wouldn't improve that -- even if all other things were equal, which they obviously really aren't.)
SBR, SBS? I see no detriment and some concrete benefits to using a shorter long-gun -- again, if I've practiced with it a lot and use it as well as any other defensive arm. There is no possible way for a prosecutor to claim I've recklessly endangered anyone with it MORESO than if I'd used a standard-length arm of similar design.
Silencers would seem to just make sense. "I use this device because it protects my hearing. I leave it installed on my weapon(s) at all times. It was on the weapon when I retrieved it upon hearing the door to my house being kicked in, etc." Again, only benefits, no detriments.
If a prosecutor wants to bring up the "evilness" of your NFA-regulated items as a significant point in your trial, I'd imagine any defense attorney worth his fee would be able to hand him his butt for wasting the court's time with such an obvious non-issue.
Johnny_Come_Lately
Member
On most points I agree with you Sam. If fact, the intent of my post was to simply imply that instead of making a decision base on a theory of I will because I can, I'm suggesting that one makes a decision based on a careful consideration of the circumstances.
I also agree that a silencer can be used to protect ones hearing and the hearing of one's loved ones from the sound of a round, or multiple rounds, being fired in an enclosed environment. However, when doing so one assumes that the average individual on the jury is going to see it that way as opposed to excessive force.
That being said, anytime someone shoots someone, be it justified or not, they must be prepared for the scurtiny of others and the outcome thereof.
In no way however, am I saying don't exercise you inherent right to bear arms to protect yourself, your property or your loved ones.
I also agree that a silencer can be used to protect ones hearing and the hearing of one's loved ones from the sound of a round, or multiple rounds, being fired in an enclosed environment. However, when doing so one assumes that the average individual on the jury is going to see it that way as opposed to excessive force.
That being said, anytime someone shoots someone, be it justified or not, they must be prepared for the scurtiny of others and the outcome thereof.
In no way however, am I saying don't exercise you inherent right to bear arms to protect yourself, your property or your loved ones.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Under what conditions would a jury be deciding that you used "excessive" force?
If you are involved in a self-defense shooting, you must claim an "affirmative defense" of self-defense. Meaning you are saying, "yes, I shot this man, and I had to because it appeared to me that he had the ability, opportunity, and intent to kill me (or commit one or more of several forcible felonies upon me or another) and I believed that he would carry out that intent if I didn't shoot right then."
You're already admitting to homicide (or at the least, ADW). There really isn't a higher standard of "excessive" force than that. You can only kill someone "so" dead. The killing is either justified by your claim of necessity, or it isn't.
If your force did not needlessly endanger innocents/bystanders (and it would be quite hard, I'd think, to convince someone that adding a silencer to a firearm made it more lethal) how is the burden of proof of necessity any higher?
Are you saying that the use of a silencer or SBR/SBS might call your claim of necessity into question? I can think of one or two scenarios where that might be plausible. Say, for example, you shot someone, but you had the time and the coolness of mind to stop and thread your silencer onto the gun before pulling the trigger. A jury might be convinced that that was time and opportunity you could have been using to flee or otherwise de-escalate the situation. In other words, maybe you didn't really have to shoot that guy.
However, in the example testimony I invented in the prior post, that wouldn't be the case. ("I leave it installed on my weapon(s) at all times. It was on the weapon when I retrieved it...")
Johnny_Come_Lately
Member
That is exactly what I am saying.
Please do not misunderstand me as I strongly believe we have the right to among other things, defend our lives, the lives of our loved ones and our property up to and including using deadly force if need be. But, as it has been posted numerous times in the thread, if involved in a shooting, to say that one is going to be looked at with a microscope is an understatement. Therefore, perception becomes an issue. As a result, my home defense plan takes that into consideration.
For that reason alone, I am very hesitant to do anything that, even though I can justify it, may cause the balance of justice as seen by someone who is deciding whether to bring charges against me, to tip, even ever so slightly, against me. With these things in mind, I feel that I can adequately provide home defense without the need for NFA items. It’s unfortunate to feel as such, but it is a product of the world in which we live.
Of course, this is my decision for my situation and I have to be able to live with it. On the other hand, everyone else has to make they own decision and be prepared to live with that decision and the repercussions thereof.
telomerase
Member
Could be. But it's much more likely that if you don't use a silencer you'll get more confused and be unable to hear important things like "honey it's me don't shoot".
Maverick223
Member
I don't believe your chosen analogies were good choices, and I don't entirely agree with your logic (at least WRT the use of sound moderators and short bbl'd long arms), but I see where you are coming from.
Johnny_Come_Lately
Member
I would agree with you.
I would also agree that compact weapons are much better than long ones due to moving around corners, clearing objects, etc...
devilstalker
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 19
There is always the option, if the AR platform is your choice (I have one in my room), to go with a pistol setup. I mean of course using a standard (not piston driven) pistol lower with a short, say 7", upper. The buffer tube locks into your shoulder just like a buttstock, just a bit lower than normally desired forcing you to drop your head a bit to the optic as opposed to raising the optic to your head, not a big adjustment to make. That makes a mean HD ar setup as the super short bble aids greatly in the tight cqb environment.
I agree with the others who said throwing a suppressor on wont hurt anything, and it will help in some aspects, but it may hurt in others. That loud bang coming out of your shorty AR will send 99% of any other baddies that were not shot running.
Its also, on the other hand, valid to use a suppressor to conserve hearing, but as to the whole concentration thing, I dont think its relevant. You know when you are gonna shoot and your mind is prepared for it. If there is a firefight of sorts, and bad guy(s) are not using cans, their fire will be what interferes with your concentration. For the few that have been in firefights, there is just as much psychological warefare going on as physical, and if the baddy hears BOOM BOOM from his gun and pff pff from yours, he may likely think he is being shot at with a pellet gun. Your BOOM BOOM will cause his head to drop. That is a truth applied to basic squad attack drills in any conventional infantry untit, the support element provides cover fire for the assault element to gain a flank... that wouldnt work at all if the support element was using cans...
Im not disagreeing with the pros of using a silencer for HD, just pointing out the cons of using one from an operational perspective as no one else has seemed to as of yet. Who cares if the legal begals have issues with it... as someone already said, killing someone is killing them, whether its a suppressed .22 pistol, your bare hands, or a .50 BMG (the latter not recommended for HD unless a tank is forcing its way through your door
I agree with the others who said throwing a suppressor on wont hurt anything, and it will help in some aspects, but it may hurt in others. That loud bang coming out of your shorty AR will send 99% of any other baddies that were not shot running.
Its also, on the other hand, valid to use a suppressor to conserve hearing, but as to the whole concentration thing, I dont think its relevant. You know when you are gonna shoot and your mind is prepared for it. If there is a firefight of sorts, and bad guy(s) are not using cans, their fire will be what interferes with your concentration. For the few that have been in firefights, there is just as much psychological warefare going on as physical, and if the baddy hears BOOM BOOM from his gun and pff pff from yours, he may likely think he is being shot at with a pellet gun. Your BOOM BOOM will cause his head to drop. That is a truth applied to basic squad attack drills in any conventional infantry untit, the support element provides cover fire for the assault element to gain a flank... that wouldnt work at all if the support element was using cans...
Im not disagreeing with the pros of using a silencer for HD, just pointing out the cons of using one from an operational perspective as no one else has seemed to as of yet. Who cares if the legal begals have issues with it... as someone already said, killing someone is killing them, whether its a suppressed .22 pistol, your bare hands, or a .50 BMG (the latter not recommended for HD unless a tank is forcing its way through your door
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,505
In a life or death situation, use anything from a pointy stick to selective fire weapons to defend oneself, one's family and one's home. Surviving the encounter is a must. That said, remember that there is a thing called collateral damage, civil liability and the fact that the police will confiscate any weapon used in the shooting and won't return it until the shooter is cleared of criminal wrongdoing.
armoredman
Member
This is what Arizona is doing, http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/scr1020s.htm&Session_ID=102
Excerpt,
Excerpt,
Capitalized are the projected changes going on the ballot, Constitutional amendment.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
