Using machine guns for self-defense

[Z-Michigan]

Seriously, machine guns aren't magical devices. It would be very easy to show a jury that they are not like the movies portray them to be.

You assume that people are rational and capable of accepting new factual information that conflicts with their preconceived notions and brainwashing from popular entertainment and news media lies. I would not bet a dime on that, much less decades in prison. If it were the case, our gun laws wouldn't resemble anything close to what they are today.

Unfortunately, I am serious.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Apparently, firing an automatic weapon anywhere other than a range could end up giving you life in prison.

What blurb in your book, or what statute cheese?

Not being a jerk, just curious.

 

[rklessdriver]

Full auto for self defense? I think its a horrid idea. Look at what Mr. Fadden went through.

Charged with First Degree MURDER. A trial that cost him 45K in legal fees (back in 1984) and ate up a week of his time (imagine how much slower our legal system works today).

Sure, he was exonerated in the end but look at the cost... try and imagine what it would be like with todays liberal lawyers and judges in charge.

And don't forget when you look at the facts - Being chased by 2 motorcycle gang members he did everything possible to flee/retreat first for 22 miles across a state line. I'll also throw in since it's missing fron from the abreivated version of the story some one posted here that the guy who lived had indeed shot at Grays truck during the chase as they had a .357 Mag under the seat with spend shells still in the cyl and more littering the floor board.

His shoot was a good as one can be and he could have still gone to jail forever. Imagine the emotional stree of having to deal with killing a man and then knowing it was all you could have done and still dealing with a trial for YOUR LIFE.

Like I said absolutly a horrid idea.
Will

 

[kurtmax]

If the Hughes Ammendment is somehow gone I'll be buying a PDW or two. And I'll be using it as a PDW. 'nuff said.

 

[Drgong]

I watced one of my fav movies, Harlen County USA (I love the movie, even if I not a union type) and the strikers used a machine gun in self defense with a standoff with some strikebreakers. for PERSONAL self defense their are less expensive and better to the task defensive arms.

 

[.cheese.]

What blurb in your book, or what statute cheese?

Not being a jerk, just curious.

Don't have it in front of me right now, but if I remember correctly, it's in Chapter seven of Florida Firearms Law, Use, & Ownership by Jon H. Gutmacher. Towards the end of the chapter it talks about NFA stuff. At least I think it's chapter seven. The blurb I'm referring to is towards the top of the page under a subtitle like "Machine Guns".

If somebody else has their copy of the book near them, perhaps they can post the page # and the statute referred to. Otherwise, later I'll be able to do so.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

If you neighborhood is soooooo bad that you feel a high probability that you will be attacked by squads of bad guys practicing CQB then...... YOU SHOULD MOVE!

That being said I think it is a bad ideas on multiple fronts.

1)I have seen what automatic 7.62 fire does to a human body. It isn't pretty. Imagine housewives and hippies on the jury seeing crime scene and autopsy photos. God help you the BG catches a burst to the face (eye/nose trauma, rounds shattering teeth/jaw, tissue destruction, etc). Does any of this affect the facts of the case? No. Will it affect the jury emotionally? You are an idiot if you think otherwise.

2)In a fight/flight scenario everything slows down. While it may see like you had your finger on trigger for <1sec likely it is 2,3,5 seconds. Firing 10, 20, 30+ rounds into the target area (even if they don't all hit) isn't going to seem "reasonable force" to a jury some of which are neither gun owners nor have they even shot a weapon (much less an automatic).

3)You likely have other weapons in the house (pistol, shotgun, etc). DA will put one some expert witnesses like a police investigator saying that "in my expert opinion I believe the home invasion could have been stopped with less destruct weapon like one of the [INSERT # HERE] the defendant had access to". Maybe they also bring in a military expert stating the purpose of an automatic weapon is suppressive fire. The goal of automatic weapon fire is to suppress the enemy so that other marksmen can engage in accurate fire with less danger to themselves. "Is there are legitimate reason to need to suppress a single target with 30 rounds, sir?". No in my opinion if the defendant had the ability to engage the target with the automatic weapon he could have in the same situation stopped the threat with accurate rifle/shotgun/pistol fire.

4)You may win. To do so you may need to take 2nd mortgage on your house and raid your IRA/401K. It is worth it though. Right? When you are a 67 year old greeter at Walmart you will be glad you wasted $20K, $50K, $100K or more defending both the criminal and civil suits. If you lose the civil suit you will be happy to pay BG family $100K, $200K, $1mil over the next 20 years. At least you are not in jail right?

Basically I see two scenarios
1) You actually need automatic fire to defend yourself. Nothing else will work. Ignoring SHTF, End of World, or Zombie scenarios, if this happens to you a lot you need to re-evaluate your neighborhood, actions, friends, and lifestyle.

2) You didn't need to use automatic weapon and did so "because I can". You may win and still lose.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Why does everyone assume that if you defend yourself with a machine gun that you're going to empty the entire magazine? I'm thinking three-five shots, one quick pull of trigger. Tell me how that is different than pulling the trigger 3-5 times? It's not. That would be easy to prove to any jury, stacked with "hippies" or otherwise.

I have seen what automatic 7.62 fire does to a human body.

Uh huh, and what say I use 9mm from an Uzi or Glock 18? The same rules for overpenetration apply regardless if you are shooting a bolt actoin, semi-auto, or automatic. Also, NO gunshots are pretty.

 

[Drgong]

Why does everyone assume that if you defend yourself with a machine gun that you're going to empty the entire magazine? I'm thinking three-five shots, one quick pull of trigger. Tell me how that is different than pulling the trigger 3-5 times? It's not. That would be easy to prove to any jury, stacked with "hippies" or otherwise.

Think the problem is that in the heat of a defensive situation, it is not unlikely that you might hold that trigger down and put a lot of bullets into the BG, and there is a tendency for juries to look hard if someone is shot with 20 bullets instead of one or two.

 

[HoosierQ]

The thing of it is, you can be sued in civil court for anything by anybody...in any state. Now the state in which the suit is filed may have a pretty dramatic affect on the outcome of the case (think CA vs. IN...NJ vs. FL...IL vs. TN for example). But by the time the gavel falls on the case, win or not, you'll be out probably tens of thousands of dollars even if you win...you're not going to defend yourself on win on something like this.

So be careful about how you think about self defense. Local state law will have a big impact on criminal liability. Local custom and culture will have some impact on the outcome of a civil matter, but the lawyers will get all your money no matter what. Unless al-Qaida starts parachuting in on me, I would not defend myself with a MG if I had a .38, a 9mm, a .45, or a shotgun available to me.

 

[TexasFats]

To my mind, the worst danger of using a full-auto gun in self-defense is the likelihood of hitting an innocent by-stander with a stray shot. Even if the shoot of the bad guy is a good shoot, collateral damage is another matter. Kill a by-stander by accident, and you will almost certainly go to jail for manslaughter. Plus, the civil liability in such a case would be terrible. You are responsible for every bullet that leaves your weapon, and each bullet has a lawyer attached to it, just waiting to bust your chops.

For that reason, a full-auto is a really, really bad idea for self-defense.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Think the problem is that in the heat of a defensive situation, it is not unlikely that you might hold that trigger down and put a lot of bullets into the BG, and there is a tendency for juries to look hard if someone is shot with 20 bullets instead of one or two.

In all likelihood, just as you have pointed out, you'll empty the magazine of the Hi-cap pistolunder stress instead of firing one or two. In fact, assessing after one or two is not a good idea. Shoot until the foe falls. In that case, you will likely empty your magazine. What is the difference between putting 15 rounds into him with your Beretta 92 and 15 rounds with your UZI? You used an evil "machine gun" so you meant to kill him! (the brainwashed jury says). Although, the same brainwashed jury that has no knowledge of the dynamics of deadly force will convict you for shooting the bad guy 15 times with your pistol. In that case, maybe everyone should just carry revolvers for defense, or maybe even single shot pirate pistols. Sheesh...

 

[ctdonath]

If the Hughes Ammendment is somehow gone I'll be buying a PDW or two. And I'll be using it as a PDW. 'nuff said.

Ditto that.

What puzzles me is why so many are so adamantly against having an option which, 922(o) aside, costs practically nothing to have. Nothing says you _must_ use the third position. AR15s were originally select-fire, and cost more to limit to semi-only. G18s cost more than G17s only because they are deliberately incompatable (an expensive manufacturing decision).

Given the option, I'd certainly install a selector on my G26 and swap the M4LE for a true M4 - only differences being the addition of "da switch". Out of practicality I'd certainly leave them on "semi" most of the time, but if I truly need "full" for any reason, I'm gonna be really peeved at those who prevented me from having it cheaply.

 

[Huddog]

For what it's worth the cost of defending the civil suit would be astronomical even if you live in a jurisdiction where the DA would not prosecute you on a valid shoot. Prior to my current position I worked as a civil litigator and Plantiff's attorney's would absolutely love to get hold of a shooting with a full auto even if the shoot was good.

 

[leadcounsel]

frankly full auto fire is fun but impractical in civilian self defense:
1. it's not as accurate or controllable
2. all those extra bullets are potentially going to strike innocent people and can kill and/or create lawsuits

full auto is great for suppressing enemy movement or fire, firing against overwhelming odds, or distant or hard targets where maximum firepower is needed and/or aimed shots aren't possible (moving vehicles, etc.).

i can't think of any realisitic situations in civilian world where full auto would be useful.

however, i am a 100% advocate for owning full auto because it's not about NEED, it's about a RIGHT.

 

[ctdonath]

General agreement is that it's not likely vital to home/personal defense.

HOWEVER, there is no justification for prohibiting it. Your situation may, somehow, require it - and having the capability costs nothing extra save for hysterical laws.

 

[VARifleman]

That story has all the markings of a guy doing everything wrong. Stepping out of the truck, etc... If you do stupid garbage like that, why would you be surprised that the prosecutor came down on you?

NFA weapons do not have hallowed magic powers. Unless you shoot somebody with something exotic like a grenade launcher or an anti-tank rifle, you really shouldn't have much to fear.

Seriously, machine guns aren't magical devices. It would be very easy to show a jury that they are not like the movies portray them to be.

All the markings of a guy doing everything wrong!?

The guy attempted flight and evasion, with no success so he tried retreating to a site where he had access and would not be easily broken into, however the timing didn't work out in his favor. As for stepping out of the truck, the outcome from staying in the truck is to be shot or stabbed inside and it limits your movement and aiming ability. It is just insane to suggest that he did everything wrong.

 

[jaholder1971]

Ayoob has referenced another instance where someone used a Smith and Wesson Model 76 (FA carbine) in a SD situation as well. I want to say it was Fadden in a second incident but I'm probably wrong. Help me out here folks...

 

[Realbigo]

I have a fair amount of expierience w/ fully automatic rifles, GPMG's and SMG's and I'm more than happy w/ having my weapons be Semi only. As a matter of fact, after reading the article above a few years back, I took the KelTec carbine outta my truck and replaced it w/ a Puma in 357. If things went bad enough, I'd much rather appear to a jury(criminal or civil) as John Wayne or Matt Dillon, than as Rambo or Chuck Norris

 

[TexasRifleman]

Ayoob has referenced another instance where someone used a Smith and Wesson Model 76 (FA carbine) in a SD situation as well. I want to say it was Fadden in a second incident but I'm probably wrong. Help me out here folks...

No, it was not the same guy.

This one was a gun store owner who actually had TWO defensive shootings with a machine gun. Once with the Smith and once with a Thompson if I remember it right.


Harry Beckwith was his name. He's deceased now.

 

[Drgong]

Well a NFA dealer has a easy answer to the question "Why did you use your machine gun on X criminal"

"Well, didn't want a criminal to gsteal any NFA firearms!"

 

[docwatson]

Gura still has a hard-on for 922(o) and has said that he doesn't think it will be repealed in our lifetime. I don't know if that's wishful thinking in his mind since he's had his lunch handed to him over it or if he honestly thinks that's the case.

 

[GEM]

If it's a good shoot, it's a good shoot. If it's bad, it's bad.

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

2. If you think juries are rational and unaffected by emotional variables - you need to google scholar the professional legal, psychological and criminological literature on what influences juries.

That being said - I want a G18.

 

[ctdonath]

since he's had his lunch handed to him over it

Care to elaborate?

He doesn't think 5-4 could be achieved by SCOTUS to repeal 922(o), on the grounds that at least 5 judges simply won't rule that way on such a third-rail issue.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Gura still has a hard-on for 922(o) and has said that he doesn't think it will be repealed in our lifetime. I don't know if that's wishful thinking in his mind since he's had his lunch handed to him over it or if he honestly thinks that's the case.

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."