Possible Legal Headaches & the MK23

[ZenRooster]

This may seem like a silly question, but...

I'd really like to own an H&K MK23 pistol (45 Auto). However, it was designed and marketed as the world's first "offensive" handgun. So that has me thinking...

If I were to own one and then use it in an (otherwise justified) home defense scenario, I can easily imagine that a clever prosecuting attorney may argue that my particular handgun was specifically created to be used offensively, and therefore, I may NOT have been acting defensively at all, but rather offensively. Otherwise, he would reason to the judge or jury, I'd be using a proper "defensive" handgun. (Or some similar line of reasoning.)

I'm not an attorney, but that's the route I'd take if I were one. So...

Am I opening myself up for added legal headaches by owning (and possibly using) one of these beauties for a nightstand gun (as opposed to a standard 1911 or Glock), or am I simply being paranoid?

Thanks in advance for your (non-legally binding) thoughts and advice.

ZR

 

[Howland937]

By that reasoning, every AR type or plastic gun advertised in the gun rags would be ineligible for defensive use since one automatically becomes an operator immediately upon wielding one.

I did a quick search and found the descriptor that the MK23 was designed specifically to be an offensive weapon, which I personally find offensive. The only thing I found that could preclude it from being a defensive weapon is the difficulty in concealing due to it's size. I don't see anything otherwise that separates it from your run of the mill .45's with added capacity, threaded barrel and accessory rail.

If you want one, get one. Any weapon used in self defense is a self defense weapon. Going on the offensive with a weapon not designated "for offensive purposes only" ain't gonna get you out of hot water, so I can't imagine the opposite would get you into more hot water.

 

[John_R]

Holy Overthinking, Batman.

 

[dh1633pm]

Like John_R said. Your over thinking.

 

[nra-life-member]

If you are concerned then find a defense attorney and ask them (your best way to get a correct answer) or maybe join one of the several defensive networks like armedcitizensnetwork.org or usconcealedcarry.com or some group similar to these and seek out one of their associated attorneys.

You need a specialist in this area - not just any plain jane attorney.

 

[CapnMac]

Well, there are plenty of people who will readily discredit the notion of an "offensive handgun" as the label is applied to the Mk 23 (especially the Mk 23).

If a person live in (or believes they live in) a jurisdiction where people are regularly prosecuted for defending their homes, then, perhaps the 'best' thing for them is to get a Raven, Jimmenz, or Bursa for defense, and leave everything else in a safe.

The world around us is not a neat binary of is or isn't, or is so or ain't so. We live with any number "risks" often without a second thought. From a risk standpoint, none of us ought be any closer to an automobile, or a road used by them, than 3-4 yards. Ever.

It's al to easy to over-think too many things. There are those who will suggest a person not take a "combat pistol course" because that might "look bad." Probably a good idea to loot at what else such a worthy does for "appearance's sake." Turning down an opportunity for more training on how to use your/a firearm is dumb if the reason is the name of the course.

The "name" of a firearm is an equally dim reason to not own one. (Ok, probably ought not buy that SuperDeathShredder in 900supermagnum . . . )

Are you practiced with the firearm in question? Can you demonstrate some level of predictable accuracy with it? Are you confident in your skills with the arm? Those are the questions that matter.

 

[GEM]

There is a simple answer. Prosecutors will bring up appearance issues to sway a jury in an ambiguous claim of self defense. There are well known and not so well known cases and studies. Internet opinions that don’t reference the professional analyses are worth spit.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

Asking that question is a bit like asking if they would let you off for "only" using a .38, but come down on you harder for using a .357.

Is it possible that an overzealous prosecutor could use it against you? Sure. Anything's possible.

Not to get off-topic, but the Rittenhouse trial was a good example of making a defendant look bad. If they want a conviction, they can make you out to be a stark-raving madman, and it won't matter if you fired a single round from a single-shot .22.

If you discharge a firearm at another person, you have just used deadly force. Your actions will be judged based on whether that use of force was justified.

 

[FL-NC]

Just say "no offense" after each time you fire it, and you should be covered.

 

[Spats McGee]

There's a lot of legal risk involved in carrying a concealed weapon, even for defensive purposes. I'm a big proponent of mitigating those risks on the front end, where possible. That means I don't put "Punisher" decorations on my CCP, or anything "cutesy," such as having "Hippies wait for flash" engraved around the crown of the barrel. With all of that said, the fact that a given pistol was initially marketed as an "offensive handgun" would be really, really far down on my list of worries. Is it possible that a prosecutor could try to make an SD shooter out as a bloodthirsty, warmongering savage? Sure, it's possible. Is it likely? Well, the prosecutor would first have to know about the marketing, and if I were in an SD shooting, how my pistol was marketed seems like just about the last thing that I'm going to talk to the prosecutor or police about.

 

[GEM]

There's a lot to unpack in the OP

If I were to own one and then use it in an (otherwise justified) home defense scenario, I can easily imagine that a clever prosecuting attorney may argue that my particular handgun was specifically created to be used offensively, and therefore, I may NOT have been acting defensively at all, but rather offensively

There is no mathematical formula to determine that the incident is otherwise justified. Justification is an opinion of human beings in the end - a jury and/or a judge. Folks on the Internet seem to think that there is some standard which guarantees they are justified. There are the laws which then will be applied by the decision makers.

That you are on trial - this is a BIG HINT - that some folks think you are not justified! Thus human beings will take the law and decide if your actions fit self-defense or not. There is not a Pythagorean formula that will operate automatically.

Some folks postulate that the gun type alone will cause the classic 'good shoot' to go to trial. This is probably not the cause. You went to the trial because your actions are funky. Even what you think is a good shoot may not be. Several times a 'otherwise justified self-defense shooting' has gone to trial because after the 'justified' shot, the defender fired another 'kill' shot. The delay could just be a few seconds.

Then in the trial - your motivations and predispositions may come into play if your actions are ambiguous (which they are because you are on trial - this is a big point).

Now, then appearance issues may come into it. As Spats said, having Punisher logos is probably a bad thing. We know, as I said before, that trials have shown gun type, ammo type, holsters, training, competition, Internet blather have been brought up in trials to demonstrate that the shooter's judgement demonstrated some aggressive intent beyond pure self-defense.

For this particular case of the HK 23 - who knows. Again, it might operate if you did something that is funky in the eyes of enough legal types that you are on trial.

Can we say that the term 'offensive' might be operative? Jury consultant, mock jurors could determine that. That's what a competent defense lawyer should ascertain. Might a juror who hates the military be offended by the choice of a military gun - sure. You can find jury interviews after the fact that have said hollow points worried them. Might calling this gun a beauty on the Internet be portrayed as be enamored with its violent potential and indicate a predisposition for a bad usage. Perhaps. Remember that in the Remington, Sandy Hook lawsuit - aggressive tone of the advertising was a major point. The gun attracted or primed violence in that claim.

So, if the incident is ambiguous - which it is, appearance might operate. Would appearance alone bring you to trial, probaby not - if that is what the OP worries about. Thus, avoid going to trial by:

1. Appropriate training and knowledge of self-defense situations and actions.
2. Have a good lawyer who knows the area on call.
3. Minimize appearance risks. Is this gun a big one - who knows? I don't think it is a big one but you never know. I wouldn't call it a beauty on a discoverable platform. That you honed in on it being described as 'offensive' might be more important than that ad as it indicates you think it is - a predisposition for usage.
4. It is more important to be able to deal with the situation in a competent and knowledgeable manner.

As far as gun type, I know we focus on that because it is fun. However, a respected trainer says (John Holschen) - whenever folks just want to talk about gun type and they are not really well trained in the other aspects of usage:

Amateurs think (or talk) equipment,
Students think techniques,
Masters think tactics.

I would add that John's outfit when they teach self-defense beyond shooting techniques, stress understanding when to actually use force.

 

[tarosean]

I'd really like to own an H&K MK23 pistol (45 Auto). However, it was designed and marketed as the world's first "offensive" handgun. So that has me thinking...

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
In addition, I am currently at a Hilton and not a Holiday Inn sooooo..

Mk 23 Mod 0 was Mil gun marked US GOV

You can buy a civilian MARK 23.

A) Head over to HK-USA website find the description of the Mark 23 and print that out for future reference.
B) Buy said Mark 23 and don't look back.

 

[Kleanbore]

The "name" of a firearm is an equally dim reason to not own one

Massad Ayoob says otherwise.

 

[CapnMac]

Massad Ayoob says otherwise.

And he is qualified to do so.
I'm just of the opinion that a prosecutor with a bee up the bonnet would go after a Hello Kitty Powder Puffer with the same zeal as a Whirlingscmitarofdeath500.

There are plenty of reasons to buy (or not buy) a Mk 23. The one in 10,000 chance that you have a defense attorney dim enough to allow a prosecutor to allege that the appellation "offensive pistol" has any meaning at all in general, let alone in the specific case needing a court room.

That's my 2¢; others will differ. They are not wrong to differ.

 

[GEM]

Allow? Now tell us how the defense attorney will have the ability to disallow the term 'offensive pistol' from being brought up? The attorney will have to object to the usage. How do you know how that will go? Jury research indicates that if the jury hears the term (assuming that the description was allowed to be uttered by the judge - maybe the lawyer could stop it, maybe not) - they will remember it and it might have influence. They may not remember the objection. They may disregard the instruction to ignore on the grounds that if the defense is all excited about this - maybe it is valid.

All these processes are in the legal and research literature on jury decision making.

Like I said, more emphasis should be place on not getting into an ambiguous shoot. I will give my 2 cents that the gun alone will not move the DA to prosecute. However, when they do - appearance is on the table.

Opening statement, the defendant use the HK 23 described in its military version has an offensive pistol rather than a defensive pistol. The defendant on the internet called it a 'beauty'. Then go on to why the defendant screwed up by shooting the 'victim'.

Ok, your turn as defense attorney. Remember the jury research indicates that discussing this issue is a delicate issue as you are further implanting the weapon in their mind, even if you are trying to make it nice. Presenting weapons primes negative attribution in the literature.

So you say - what?

 

[The Glockodile]

A little tangential to the OP's concerns, but...

The Mark 23 is an awkward home defense firearm, JIMHO.

Big.

Heavy.

Slow.

Limited options for Tritiums.

Even more limited options for Red Dots, if you're into that kind of thing.

Poor ergonomics.

Not sure what the DA pull is even there for. Certainly can't get a quick first DA shot off, unlike what one can do on a WonderNine SIG / Beretta. The Decocker tried to emulate SIG's... But it's just weird to use - not sure if anybody actually does use it for its intended purpose (look at all the photos of the Mark 23s online - do you see any swipe marks in the decocker recess?).

Cocked and Locked? The safety's not the best for a quick draw. Certainly not on par with a 1911.

Expensive and not readily - available spare parts.

Did I say expensive? That's because Heckler & Koch hates you, the civilian. This is a weapon forged by Teutonic Gods for the Warrier Elite Militocrati!

And when the cops take of possession of your pistol during the investigation, the whole precinct's most certainly going to have its way with it... Try imagining that

All that being said - it certainly is an awesome range toy, or something to use wherein you have the luxury of the first shot. It's fun to use even with .45 Super. The Mark 23, and its USP cousins, are arguably the best suppressor hosts there are - the silencers have the added benefit of acting as stabilizers and augment the pistol's long sight radius, enhancing what already is excellent out - of - the - box accuracy.

 

[John_R]

Mark 23s are waaaaay too expensive to waste as a home defense weapon, anyway.

 

[Kleanbore]

a defense attorney dim enough to allow a prosecutor to allege that the appellation "offensive pistol" has any meaning at all in general, let alone in the specific case needing a court room.

Just how might an attorney prevent that?

 

[GEM]

True, a Glock 19 MOS, Gen 5 or equivalent from other quality folks is perfectly adequate. RDS if you are into it. Practice, train, compete and you are good to go.

Back to the attorney, your attorney will have to counter the bad karma with explanation of why your SD claim was legit. Zimmerman had trouble for using hollow points and seeming to be a police wannabee. However, the defense could explain why using the 'police' ammo was a reasonable and sensible choice. As Mas explained they pushed the safety issue of the hollow point as not over penetrating.

 

[tarosean]

Cocked and Locked? The safety's not the best for a quick draw. Certainly not on par with a 1911.

This is pretty much the only thing I will agree with out of your post.

It is small and takes a concerted effort. Esp. if you're used to other HKs/1911's/CZ's, etc.

We have a member that EDC's one with a RMR on it. I forget who the user is though.

 

[The Glockodile]

This is pretty much the only thing I will agree with out of your post.

We have a member that EDC's one with a RMR on it. I forget who the user is though.

The pistol must have been made for you, then!

I like MY HKs... But I’m sure no Fanboi!

Let’s wait and see if anyone shares your opinion.

Once one goes through that short transition period, they're not going to want to go back to just irons. I've never once talked to someone that was competent with a red dot that prefers irons.

This guy?

 

[tarosean]

True, a Glock 19 MOS, Gen 5 or equivalent from other quality folks is perfectly adequate.

Oh but that comes with a National Stock Number too.
So where does it end or begin?

 

[crestoncowboy]

By that reasoning, every AR type or plastic gun advertised in the gun rags would be ineligible for defensive use since one automatically becomes an operator immediately upon wielding one.

I did a quick search and found the descriptor that the MK23 was designed specifically to be an offensive weapon, which I personally find offensive. The only thing I found that could preclude it from being a defensive weapon is the difficulty in concealing due to it's size. I don't see anything otherwise that separates it from your run of the mill .45's with added capacity, threaded barrel and accessory rail.

If you want one, get one. Any weapon used in self defense is a self defense weapon. Going on the offensive with a weapon not designated "for offensive purposes only" ain't gonna get you out of hot water, so I can't imagine the opposite would get you into more hot water.

The original mk 23 mod 0 was designed as an offensive pistol. I think the slide lock for suppressed use was a big part of that. That lock went away and the gun became a very large 45 like many others.

I have a few USP and an early Mark 23. I prefer the USP by a good bit for any real use . The combination safety/decock is better IMO. Plus the trigger on the tactical USP is better. The Mark is 23 is a massive gun. If you haven't used one then picture more of a Desert eagle/X frame comically large gun . Even compared to USP .

Today there are a dozen guns id choose over a USP for self defense. Probably 3 dozen id choose over a Mark 23.

The MK 23 is a great conversation piece. Especially if your an 80s/90s kid who played video games. But much like the SPAS 12 is one of those "never meet your heroes" deals.

 

[JCooperfan1911]

Just get an FNX-45 Tactical.

It’s a better home defense gun with more firepower than the ridiculous and outdated Mk 23 and you won’t have to wring your hands every time you put it on the nightstand.

 

[Old Dog]

If I were to own one and then use it in an (otherwise justified) home defense scenario,

By home defense, I presume you mean that an intruder is actually inside your home... and by (otherwise justified), I presume you mean that you employed lethal force in accordance with your state laws, that the force you used was reasonable and necessary, that there was a clearly identifiable threat to you or a family member, i.e., intruder armed with a deadly weapon or a disparity of force situation, and that you had no other option?

Sheesh. Really, as others are noting, there a way more practical considerations to using this pistol than legal considerations.

Holy Overthinking, Batman.

I'm going with his answer.

Today there are a dozen guns id choose over a USP for self defense. Probably 3 dozen id choose over a Mark 23.

Yeah, I can think of at least a hundred I'd chose over the MK-23 for a "home-defense" handgun.

Just get an FNX-45 Tactical.

Well, don't have the Tactical version, but I'd use this over the MK-23 any day of the week as a home defense pistol...