AR rifles as a "home defense" guns?

[gringojosh]

I see posts about using AR-type rifles as "home defense" guns and can't help wonder how that would hold up in court. I can see a handgun or a shotgun, but a rifle accurate to hundreds of yards makes me wonder.

[Sefner]

Handguns can be accurate to a hundred yards. I know guys that can put shotgun slugs 200 yards and have only one hole.

What does the accuracy of a home defense firearm have anything to do with it anyways? Wouldn't you want the most accurate firearm you could get? I don't follow this line of reasoning.

People have successfully defended their homes with AR 15s many times.

Here is one from Massad Ayoob: http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

Here is another where a kid uses his dad's AR to defend the home: http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/son-uses-dads-ar-15-to-defend-home/.

Sure it might result in more a legal hassle because of it's "scary black rifle" reputation, but I know of no case in which that was the main thrust of the prosecution's argument. It would probably only come up if there were other factors that made the shoot a little murky. In most cases a clean shoot is a clean shoot regardless of the firearm used (assuming it's a legal firearm of course).

[maestro pistolero]

With the right round, over-penetration is less of a factor than with handgun rounds. A 55 grain .223 projectile will penetrate typical wall, but afterward, due to it's low mass, will not be as dangerous as a heavier handgun round.

I realize this is counter-intuitive, but a little research will show I know what I am talking about. It's so true, in fact, that the FBI trains agents to transition to handgun when digging a suspect out from behind typical drywall construction.

Two downsides, tactically speaking, are:

1. An AR15 rifle is rather unwieldy in tight quarters compared to a handgun. Like a shotgun, it serves the average homeowner better when used taking up a defensive position. It's probably inadvisable for the average person without special training and backup to attempt to 'clear' their own house. Clear a path to escape if necessary? Sure.

2. The Db (volume) generated indoors can do permanent hearing damage with a single round fired. The undeveloped ears of young children are especially vulnerable to permanent damage from such intense sound pressures.

[HarrySchell]

Over-penetration can be lessened with bullet choice. A polymer-tip varmint round a buddy and I are handloading should mushroom very aggressively and dump its energy quickly.

[C0untZer0]

^ +1

With the right ammo a .308 / 7.62x51 penetrates in the range of various handgun rounds - 10" - 15"

.308 Hornady 110gr TAP rounds penetrate to around 10" and create huge temporary stretch cavites. The round travels at 3075 fps, if there is such thing as Hydrostatic Shock - I think this round would create it.

.308 Hornady 155gr TAP rounds penetrate to 15" and also creates significant temporary stretch cavities.

On the other hand, a 44 magnum using FMJ is probably going to penetrate an assailant and keep right on going...

A lot of it depends on different factors.

[C0untZer0]

When you are talking about "holding up in court" in what way do you mean? And where?

We really still are a republic despite some complaints that we're not...

In Oklahoma, South Carolina and other states that have what would be considered "strong" castle doctrine law... you aren't going to be going to any court where anything has to "hold up" - no criminal charges, no civil suit. (Assuming this is a legitimate HD situation)

If you are in Washington DC, or Vermont... then it's another matter.

[Spats McGee]

Sefner has hit two points that line up pretty well with my thinking on the matter.
. . . .What does the accuracy of a home defense firearm have anything to do with it anyways? Wouldn't you want the most accurate firearm you could get? I don't follow this line of reasoning.
. . . .Sure it might result in more a legal hassle because of it's "scary black rifle" reputation, but I know of no case in which that was the main thrust of the prosecution's argument. It would probably only come up if there were other factors that made the shoot a little murky. In most cases a clean shoot is a clean shoot regardless of the firearm used (assuming it's a legal firearm of course).
The problems associated with overpenetration are not specific to the AR, and I'll leave those discussions to those who know more about the ballistics than I.

As for those potential legal problems related specifically to ARs (or other Scary Black Rifles), provided that we're talking about a legal (in your state) and (basically) stock rifle, the only real issue I see is that using one for HD might result in image problems for the shooter, in terms of jury perception. Those can be minimized on the front end by avoiding things like "Punisher" or "Death's Head" emblems. (I would avoid things like that on any HD or SD weapon, be it AR, Glock, or what have you, and for that very reason.) Other than that, there's nothing about the AR platform that puts the shooter at any greater legal risk than any other semi-automatic rifle.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ahem - I know something about this. Here's the bottom line with firearms issues - if the shoot is ambiguous (which it is if you are going to trial), jury simulation data is clear that weapons issues can influence potential jurors.

Folks will say - if it is a good shoot, weapons issues don't make a difference.

If you are in court, it isn't a good shoot.

DAs will emphasize the evil nature of things in some cases: gun appearance, training - for example. We have simulations and cases to support this.

The answer - if you are in court - have an attorney who is very aware of the firearms issues and the data regarding such.

No one gets convicted because of the weapons issues, but if you look at the net set of influences on a jury - such factors contribute to your shoot being viewed as good or bad.

Also, the DA doesn't have to bring it directly up as a rant. Simple appearance or mention can prime negative attributions to you.

If you don't believe it (the usual rant response) - you are the one that might go to jail - not me.

Now go on google scholar and search the real lit as compared to MY OPINION. Hint. ;)

[thallub]

If you are in court, it isn't a good shoot.

+1

If you're being tried in court you have failed three tests:
1. The police did not believe your story.
2. The prosecutor did not believe your story.
3. The grand jury did not believe your story.

There is a very good chance the jury will not believe your story.

Now back to the subject: An AR-15 is not my idea of a good self defense gun. A shotgun is much better, especially in an apartment or townhouse setting.

[Sefner]

GEM makes a good distinction that I failed to make.

If it's a good shoot and the police know it you very well might not even spend the night in jail. The police might not even take your gun. What I meant to say is that a good shoot will, in most cases, never get as far as a trial and so the type of gun used (as long as its legal) will not matter.

If it's a questionable shoot then yeah, the type of gun used is probably going to be played on by the prosecutor if it fits their argument.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Big debate about that one.

Might look at the link I posted in http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=475482&page=5

Post 103.

BTW - I've taken Defensive Shotgun from Tom Givens at Karl's. Wrote that up

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=453025&highlight=tom+givens

I love my shotgun but to each his own and I go AR first.

Back to the initial question. We did find the that shotguns didn't make simulated juries upset - so that's a point for them.

Shoot one from each hand - Arnold could!

[C0untZer0]

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=351491

Shotgun alone beat out rifle alone or handgun alone combined, and beat each by a better than 2 to 1 margin. Shotgun alone or in combo with another firearm garnered 75% of the vote.

[BitterTait]

There is some evidience (http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/09/will-it-hurt-me-in-court-weapons-issues-and-the-fears-of-the-legally-armed-citizen/) that Evil Black Rifles negatively influence jury's perceptions on lawful shootings. Note that this is in comparison to a gun with the same capacity firing the same round, just with wood furniture and a non pistol grip stock. So if you're in an area where a lawful self defense shooting tends to end up in court, it may be worth your while to get a less ugly gun. That said, if your AR-15 is the gun you know the best, the path of "carried by 6 vs judged by 12" is one worth considering.

[Ralgha]

Shotgun alone beat out rifle alone or handgun alone combined, and beat each by a better than 2 to 1 margin. Shotgun alone or in combo with another firearm garnered 75% of the vote.

You also have to consider what you will be most familiar with and what you will practice with. Myself, I have no desire to own a shotgun. If I were to get one for HD, I would probably not shoot it much, if at all, whereas I would probably tend to go shoot an AR fairly often.

Of course right now I don't have an AR either and must rely on my trusty HK. :cool:

AFAIK, I need to add more acronyms, LOL. IANAL, YMMV. GTG, BBL.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Polls - not conclusive evidence, now are they? Look at who we elect.

Also, who wrote that Jury article - probably some professor. What to they know? Do they even own an AR? You know what they say about professors!

Geez whiz, folks. :D

[Hiker 1]

If you are in a home-defense shooting, which is what the OP is about, and you live in a state with good Castle Doctrine laws, then it doesn't matter what weapon you use. If the shooting is ruled a Castle Doctrine shooting, then you are protected from criminial prosecution and civil suit.

There was a recent incident here in Colorado where a person defended himself with a broken bottle and killed the home invader. It was ruled a CD defense case. No further legal or civil action was or could be taken against him.

If you are outside the home or live in a state w/o Castle Doctrine laws that favor the home-owner, the weapon you use may be an issue.

[kraigwy]

can't help wonder how that would hold up in court. I can see a handgun or a shotgun

That is a very good question and one I think people should consider.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent a lot of time in court either as a witness or complainant (never as a defendant :)).

I've seen a lot of juries and know they are funny creatures.

Regardless of the strict wording of the law, Mindset does come into play.

About this time of year (every year) we have pictures showing up about the SHOT SHOW. This year more then ever we see firearms that would scare off an Alien Invasion, just by looks alone.

Gone are the Blued Rifles with Wood Stocks. Gone are the fine over/under shotguns, gone are the bolt action 22 small game rifles. Good or bad is based on opinion but look at it this way.

You have a jury, made of of moderate citizens, not all gun nuts, not all anti gun people.

Now think: You have Mr Jones who protects his home from a home invader. He uses his "tacticool AR, with enough gadgets to strain an Infantry Company's Supply Trains. Two 30 round magazines taped together.

Now look at Mr Smith, same situation, only he has a old Smith and Wesson, passed down from his grandfather, or maybe his Remington 870 Duck Gun.

MIND SET:

That's the key, what is the jury gonna think about the mind set of Mr Jones and Mr. Smith.

Mindset does come into play when you are trying to show your state of mind at the time of the person who is claiming Self Defense.

Also they look at the person. A 250 lb line backer is going to have more difficulty claiming SD then a 100 lb 60 year old grandmother.

If it's a legit shooting, you may not have to worry about this criminally, but in states that allow civil suits it will come into play.

Even if you prevail, (which you probably will if its really a justifiable shooting) the more muddied the water, the more its going to cost you to defend your actions.

Right or wrong, perception matters.

As a side note, I think it would pay anyone who carries a gun for SD should look into the ideal of carrying insurance to cover you in such court cases. Even if you win, the insurance just might save your house of your kids college fund.

[chack]

If you are in court, it isn't a good shoot.
Not really. Many people end up in court to witness against the guy they shot, not to defend themselves.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Obviously, we mean that YOU are on trial or being sued.

[C0untZer0]

I do think a tactic that is sometimes used is "muddy the water".

Just as an example, my mom was hit by a driver who was insured by a company whose business model calls for litigating every claim.

My mom has All State insurance, she and the All State lawyer had to go to court over the claim. The opposing lawyer introduced all sorts of irrelevant information, and the All State lawyer was constantly objecting.

One of the objections that were over-ruled was this long drawn out description of nearby rail road tracks. The rail road track had nothing to do with the accident what so ever.

But the guy had the jury's attention and they were concentrating on taking in the info on the railroad tracks. In the end, the jury was confused, I could see that just sitting in the gallery, and I think since they were confused they decided to split the difference between what All State was asking and what the other insurance company was asking. So the opposing lawyer's tactic was succesful in saving his company money (about $7,000).

My ex wife served on a jury that was deciding a drug case. The opposing attorney muddied the waters over possible entrapment - again just sitting in the court room I could see that it wasn't entrapment, but the arguments were enough to confuse some jurors, and they were deadlocked. Around 9:30 pm, the jury cut a sort of compromise deal among themselves, they would find the accused guilty on one charge and innocent on the other. Logically it made no sense. If it was entrapment he should have been found innocent on all counts. If it was not entrapment - he should have been found guilty. But it just goes to show you that you don't know what's going to transpire with a jury.

[ripnbst]

With Hornady TAP ammo or a varmint bullet I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[C0untZer0]

The reason I asked the OP which "court" he was talking about is that some states do not have laws to preclude a civil wrongful death suit even if it was determined to be justifible homocide (or similar), or there is no underlying criminal charge or even if you were proven innocent.

I was thinking about the Mossberg 930 Field and the 930 SPX 8-shot. The Field model has a longer barrel and shorter feed tube but other than that - they are basically identical guns. I'm pretty sure the stock and forend are interchangeable. I have no problem with having a walnut stock and forend on my HD shotgun - I'm not going to hang stuff off of there anyway.

I do think people make cosmetic changes to their weapons - like death's head/ skull & cross bones / Punisher logo, that have no effect on the weapons functioning. The other can be true - if it doesn't affect the functioning of the weapon why not make it look "friendlier".

[Smok3y]

I know you guys aren't on the topic of drywall penetration any longer, but a helpful link regardless. Hopefully you guys get some use out of it, and take it for what it is.

Drywall vs. Common Handgun & Rifle Cartridges (http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/ammunition.html)

[44 AMP]

Sadly, in a lot of cases, perception trumps reality. And using a rifle, particularly a military look alike rifle, by choice, can give the otherside the opportunity to try and convince the jury of something that isn't really so.

They can try to make it look like you were eager and looking forward to shooting someone. They try to do this with handloads, or a gun that has been customised, or anything that they can use to imply that the shooting wasn't a last resort action.

Use of a military style rifle, particularly when it wasn't the only gun available will be pointed out as "proof" you were anticipating a confrontation (at best) or that you were actively looking for the chance of shooting someone (at worst).

Something like "a regular handgun wasn't deadly enough for you, you chose to use an assault weapon!" etc. Anything and everything is grist for their propaganda mill to paint you as irresponsible, and therefore, in the wrong.

Leaving aside the fact that for most home defense situations any rifle is overpowered, over ranged, too long for best use inside the house etc., etc., etc.....the fact that you chose to use an "assault weapon" (and they can get away with calling it that, because, under several laws, it is defined that way), iis going to be used to play on the emotions and sensibilities of the jury.

Even though I live in a rural location, where a rifle is actually somewhat useful for "home defense" (and that includes predator and varmint control), for self defense against human attackers its a very very unusual situation where you would be justified shooting them at rifle ranges.

At close ranges, particularly inside the home, the rifle (even a carbine) has distinct disadvantages over a handgun, or a shotgun.

But, if its the only gun you have, or its the only one you can get to in time, that's what you use. Just be prepared to have to counter the "evil" image the other side is going to make it out to be in court.

A tricked out AR, with a 30rnd stick in the well creates the image of "offense" more than "defense" in the minds of the non enthusiast, and tis quite likely there will be more of them on a jury than people who actually understand firearms and their use has nothing to do with appearance.

[chack]

I know of a couple different attackers who were able to get acquitted after their crime and the defender's gun's appearance came into play.

The first was an army buddy who stopped a home invasion and domestic assault with his SKS when his girlfriend's ex boyfriend showed up at their apartment with a samarai sword, mace, and what he thought was homemade chloroform. The ex boyfriend's attorney claimed that my buddy's "military Assault rifle" (it had a bayonet) was proof of a militant vigilante mindset and the ex just took prudent precautions to protect himself from a violent extremist. He said the ex just innocently stopped by to check the well being of his friend (the girlfriend) who he was concerned about since she was living with such a dangerous man. They then said that my buddy was obviously derangeed since he had come back from Iraq just a few months earlier and it was well known how most Iraqi vets are unstable and suffer from PTSD.

We live in a very liberal college town and the jury (all democrats) bought the BS and acquitted the ex for everything but a misdemeanor trespassing charge. It took him 8 months to get his SKS back.

The other time it was a little more complicated, but the fact that the victim defended himself with a Glock that had a 30 rd magazine in it was used by the defense as proof that the victim was a vigilante looking for a fight and wanted to get car jacked. The disadvantaged youths who got shot in the commission of the crime were just "asking for directions"

[brickeyee]

If you're being tried in court you have failed three tests:
1. The police did not believe your story.

What the police believe does not matter all that much.

They do not prosecute or make prosecutorial decisions.

2. The prosecutor did not believe your story.

Or they think they can get more votes in the next election cycle.
At least thid IS a person who can actually make a decision.

It is called 'proprietorial discretion.'

3. The grand jury did not believe your story.

Maybe, or a zealous prosecutor (possibly overzealous) made the case to a grand jury.
It can allow them to NOT have to make a decision about the case, and risk the political fallout.
If the grand jury refuses to indict the prosecutor can still trumpet to libs he "Did the right thing" and if it indicts he can tell conersvatives it "Was not my call."

Some places require all homicides to go before a grand jury, but the prosecutor still normally has plenty of discretion how he steers the case before them.

[thallub]

What the police believe does not matter all that much.

i'm not sure where you come from. Where i come from the police report carries an awful lot of weight. A prosecutor seldom ignores the recommendation of the police.

[KyJim]

Ahem - I know something about this. Here's the bottom line with firearms issues - if the shoot is ambiguous (which it is if you are going to trial), jury simulation data is clear that weapons issues can influence potential jurors.

Folks will say - if it is a good shoot, weapons issues don't make a difference.

If you are in court, it isn't a good shoot.

DAs will emphasize the evil nature of things in some cases: gun appearance, training - for example. We have simulations and cases to support this.
+1

This is why I have a plain jane Mossberg 500 in my closet (revolver by the bed). I consider my AR as a true SHTF type weapon since I live in suburbia. If I lived in a rural area, a rifle might make more sense. If I wanted to use a rifle instead of a shotgun as my primary home defense long gun, I would consider buying a Ruger Mini-14 just because it doesn't have that evil black rifle appearance. A lever action rifle in a pistol caliber like .357 magnum would also be an option.

Even gun friendly prosecutors in gun friendly states will use gun stereotypes if it helps their case. I've had a couple where AK-47 style rifles were involved and you can bet I used the term "assault rifle" liberally when I filed briefs with the court (I'm an appellate prosecutor). It's just part of building the story even if it's not a major building block.

[2damnold4this]

KyJim, that is an interesting comment.

[thallub]

KyJim, thanks for your excellent post. i've talked with two former prosecutors who say the thing you do.

[ltc444]

From a pure technical point of view, A carbine requires less training to shoot accurately than does a pistol. Historically in WW II, this determination is why the M-1 Carbine was initially issued to troops who traditionally had been provided with pistols. Later it was issued generally to Officers, NCOs and soldiers who duties required them to carry heavy or bulky loads. Communications soldiers were one class.

My preferred HD weapon is a 45 1911. My wife has a 12ga. Unfortunately, she is afraid of the shotgun. She has expressed intrest in my AR 15. I don't think a scared woman alone would have a problem in AZ.

The second issue is the actions of the shooter immediately following the incident.

Based on my recent experience with Sheriff Paul Babeau and his special enforcement unit, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. Do not trust the Police.
2. The Police lie. (My attorneys words not mine. He is now a Superior Court Judge.)
3. Be cooperative but Don't talk immediately after the incident claim the truth you are to upset to talk. Conduct your "interview" only in the pressence of your attorney. Anything you say before you are Mirandized will be used against you. Preplan for that inevitability. Get an attorney who is knowledgable about firearms law. Not your tax or real Estate Attorney. $3,000 is a small price to pay considering what you stand to loose.
4. What you do and say immediately after the event will have major consquence down the line. Bernard Goetz, Long Island Train shooter, is a good case study of what not to do.
5. The CVS road rage shooting in Phoenix is a good example of how a bad situation can be remedied by a good Attorney.
6. It is better to look guilty initially and get good advice, than attempt to look not guilty without advice.

Hopefully, you will never face self defense situation.

If you do, shoot straight, hit the bad guys, and survive.

[Double Naught Spy]

I see posts about using AR-type rifles as "home defense" guns and can't help wonder how that would hold up in court. I can see a handgun or a shotgun, but a rifle accurate to hundreds of yards makes me wonder.

Why would it matter if it was accurate to hundreds of yards?

You should use whatever weaponry you have that you can use effectively and that will provide you with the greatest chances for survival in your given situation.

Trying to select lawyer-proof weaponry can be contrary to selecting effective self defense weaponry.

Think about it another way. You are in a life or death situation and a bad guy is trying to kill you or a loved one. What is your most immediate need and greatest goal? Is it being concerned about what might happen in court at some unknown point in the future or is it about stopping the threat?

[Hiker 1]

Again, it depends on your state and whether or not your incident is ruled a Castle Doctrine defensive case. Then, it truly doesn't matter what you use, whether it is an AR15 or a Louisville Slugger.

Here in Co, if the incident is determined to be Castle Doctrine home defense, you are in the clear from both criminal and a civil legal action regardless of the weapon you use.

If you live in a state without Castle Doctrine laws, it could be another situation entirely.

Here are some good examples from Missouri, where the residents were not charged even after shooting unarmed invaders: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/castle-doctrine-cases/article_86f5e6df-011e-59f5-9b2c-2f686c899e07.html

[Double Naught Spy]

Again, it depends on your state and whether or not your incident is ruled a Castle Doctrine defensive case. Then, it truly doesn't matter what you use, whether it is an AR15 or a Louisville Slugger.

As near as I can tell, it doesn't seem to matter what weapon is used in those states if there is a death or injury that results. People seem willing to sue regardless of the weaponry. They will claim everything from wrongful death, excessive force, endangerment, and negligence.

[thallub]

i prefer a shotgun for home defense because i believe its the best weapon for the job. Shotguns worked very well in my two home invasion experiences.

[brickeyee]

Where i come from the police report carries an awful lot of weight. A prosecutor seldom ignores the recommendation of the police.

That is not the same as deciding what cases to pursue.

While a prosecutor may rely on the police take, they do not have the final word.
The prosecutor often does.

In a jurisdiction that requires all homicides to go before a grand jury, the police have even less ability to affect outcomes.

"An awful lot of weight" does not make control or make a decision.

[Hiker 1]

As near as I can tell, it doesn't seem to matter what weapon is used in those states if there is a death or injury that results. People seem willing to sue regardless of the weaponry.

That's true, but in a Castle Doctrine ruling, the defender is often protected from civil action as well (depending on the state).

From Wikipedia: In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages or injury resulting from the lawful use of not excessive force.

[Double Naught Spy]

That's true, but in a Castle Doctrine ruling, the defender is often protected from civil action as well (depending on the state).

Yes, we all know this. How does that affect your self defense choices? If you are not in a state with castle doctrine or not in a situation where castle doctrine would apply to you and you are in fear for your life, what decision for self defense are you making? Are you going to reason that you need to use a kinder, gentler manner for keeping the bad guy from killing you so that he or his family won't sue you? Do you have some sort of listing for lawyer proof weaponry or methods?

Sorry. You keep saying some states have castle doctrine and some states don't, but I am not clear what your point is.

If somebody is trying to kill me or a loved one, I am not going to waste a lot of thought on trying to figure out a lawyer-proof way to effect self defense for that situation. Whether or not somebody might want to sue me at a later date isn't a primary concern.

[Hiker 1]

The OP is this: I see posts about using AR-type rifles as "home defense" guns and can't help wonder how that would hold up in court. I can see a handgun or a shotgun, but a rifle accurate to hundreds of yards makes me wonder.

My point (which I thought I made) is that in a Castle Doctrine state, you should feel free to use whatever home-defense weapon you like because you don't have to worry about legal and civil aftermath if your shooting is ruled a Castle Doctrine shooting.

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I lived in a non-CD state, an AR variant would likely not be my first choice for HD. There are plenty of other viable options that don't look as "scary" to the soccer moms and Gomers that will be on your jury.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The concept of weapons influence on juries occurs when this isn't the case.

if your shooting is ruled a Castle Doctrine shooting.

That's a variant of the good shoot mantra. I wonder why people continually miss this point.

The obvious answer (as stated in the professional literature) is that if one uses techinque X, Y or Z or instrument X, Y or Z be aware of risks at trial and how to deal with them.

The legal experts, prosecutors and simulation experts start with the premised THAT YOU ARE ON TRIAL.

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be finally realize this simple point.

[scottycoyote]

if my life is on the line im not going to dwell about which will look best in court when i grab it. In my bedroom i could equally bring a 12g assault shotgun or an AR into play, i cant imagine a scenario inside where i wouldnt reach for the 12g. If for some reason id be engaging targets outside at distance (which may be hard to defend in court) then yeah id take the AR. Of course if all i had was an AR, or a pistol, or a bat, id put my hand on it (and my cellphone calling 911) and try to improvise thru the situation as best i could.

[Hiker 1]

The concept of weapons influence on juries occurs when this isn't the case.

Yes, I know. That is what I am saying. Over and over...:rolleyes:

[Glenn E. Meyer]

When you can guarantee that a shooting is covered by the Castle Doctrine, you will have no worries.

[Webleymkv]

Just because a firearm is accurate at long distance, that does not mean that it must be used only at long distance. Even at relatively short distances of 25 yards or less, most people shoot more accurately with a rifle than they do with a handgun.

Now, you'd obviously have some difficult questions to answer if you shot someone from several hundred yards away and tried to claim self-defense, but I don't really see rifle vs. handgun/shotgun being an issue if we're still talking about easily justifiable self-defense ranges.

What may be an issue, however, is the use of a gun that is perceived as a "military weapon" or "assault weapon". While I don't think the use of a rifle in and of itself would be likely to present extra difficulty in legal defense, the use of an AR-15 or AK-47 might be more difficult to defend than the use of a Marlin 336 or Remington 7600. This is because the former two have been labeled by the media and certain politicians as "assault weapons" while the latter two are marketed as and commonly viewed as sporting rifles.

That being said, I've never heard or read of someone being convicted of a crime due to their choice of weapon without some other questionable circumstance(s) being present. However, as has been pointed out, the fact that you're facing trial to begin with indicates that circumstances aren't as cut and dry as you might prefer. I think that the political disposition of your area would probably be a factor as well. For example, someone who defends himself/herself with an AR-15 is likely to be viewed differently in MA or CA than he/she would be in TX or AZ.

Really, there's no universal "cookie cutter" answer here as it all depends on your own unique circumstances. I personally keep and AK-type rifle among my HD firearms, but I live in a relatively firearm/self-defense friendly area and have found my particular rifle to be both easy to shoot well and extremely reliable. In my case, the benefit outweighs the risk. There are no guarantees as people have been able to legally justify the use of very exotic weapons including full-auto rifles and submachineguns while other people have been unable to legally justify the use of relatively mundane weapons such as double-barrel shotguns and revolvers.

If you want an effective rifle that is less likely to be perceived as an "assault weapon", there are choices available. Favorites in this category include the Ruger Mini-14/Mini Thirty and pistol-caliber lever-action rifles such as the Marlin M94 and Winchester M92. If you're comfortable with more powerful rifle cartridges like .243 Winchester, .270 Winchester, .308 Winchester, or .30-06 Springfield, the Remington 750 or 7600 are also viable choices.

[brickeyee]

When you can guarantee that a shooting is covered by the Castle Doctrine, you will have no worries.

Make sure you get that "guarantee" in writing and signed by a judge.

Someone is going to make the decision that a "Castle Doctrine" law applies.

It may be a DA, it may well be a judge.

You would be well advised to show up with an attorney to any and all meetings or hearings.

Are you 'on trial'?

Probably not yet.

But the outcome of the hearing or meeting may well determine if that is the path that you will soon be on.

[tet4]

I've had a couple where AK-47 style rifles were involved and you can bet I used the term "assault rifle" liberally when I filed briefs with the court (I'm an appellate prosecutor).

Shame on you - this is what leads to assault weapons bans and all that nonsense, in addition to good people getting hassled because of the color or style of their rifle. IMO, if prosecutors have to resort to sensationalizing the brief in order to get a conviction, something is definitely not right.

Sorry, this stuff gets under my skin when people (well meaning, I'm sure) say they are pro-rights and then go do stuff like this. As a prosecutor, you have a great potential to uphold or trample on the right to keep and bear arms.

[Salmoneye]

In Oklahoma, South Carolina and other states that have what would be considered "strong" castle doctrine law... you aren't going to be going to any court where anything has to "hold up" - no criminal charges, no civil suit. (Assuming this is a legitimate HD situation)

If you are in Washington DC, or Vermont... then it's another matter.

Ummm...

Can't speak to DC, but in spite of not having a 'Castle Doctrine' here in VT, the law is very clear:

§ 2305. Justifiable homicide

If a person kills or wounds another under any of the circumstances enumerated below, he or she shall be guiltless:

(1) In the just and necessary defense of his or her own life or the life of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister, master, mistress, servant, guardian or ward; or

(2) In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, with force or violence; or

(3) In the case of a civil officer; or a military officer or private soldier when lawfully called out to suppress riot or rebellion, or to prevent or suppress invasion, or to assist in serving legal process, in suppressing opposition against him or her in the just and necessary discharge of his or her duty. (Amended 1983, No. 23, § 2.)

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=13&Chapter=053&Section=02305

[Skans]

I think Harry Beckwith used an M16 to thwart off burglars. Shot one of them. Read about the Beckwith Incident. I don't believe he suffered any legal consequences.

[IZZY]

A rifle of any serious caliber makes blast/gas issues at close range almost as bad for your ears as it did for this guys head ( 30-30 point blank range).

Sorry for those who may be squemish about the pic, but a subsonic round like a handgun in .45 would serve you better INDOORS ( Home defense) than a carbine or rifle.

See pic in this link:

http://terrify.rotten.com/gunshot/30-30.html

[maestro pistolero]

A suppressed 9mm or 45 with subsonic rounds would be ideal for home defense. A few rounds of gunfire indoors can deafen a person, especially young children's undeveloped ears.

[Aikibiker]

It has been done in the past with no ill effects for anyone but the criminal. My best advice is know the laws WRT self defense for the jurisdiction you are in and follow them. Then it should not matter what you use, you will win in the end.

I do want a suppressor though just for the hearing protection aspect.

[Double Naught Spy]

Certain folks believe that you will be okay so long as the gun you are using is what the local cops use. It probably would not be very difficult to find a local PD that uses AR15s as your "It's okay, it is what the police use" justification.

[BGutzman]

Im not sure why I would ever pick a small caliber AR over a 12 Ga shotgun for the close in situation of self defense.... Seems like a poor choice of weapons....

But I suppose if you felt you needed to use a less powerful weapon (AR) you might be able to legally justify it but ARs have such bad press in the media that you almost certainly will be subject to some sort of prosecution.

For me I just dont see it.... Nothing says stop what your doing like hearing a round chambering in a 12Ga.

[maestro pistolero]

Im not sure why I would ever pick a small caliber AR over a 12 Ga shotgun for the close in situation of self defense.... Seems like a poor choice of weapons....
Perhaps it isn't the best choice, but 5.56 is extremely lethal at close range. So is 12 gauge, unless home invaders are wearing body armor. (not unheard of).

But I suppose if you felt you needed to use a less powerful weapon (AR) you might be able to legally justify it but ARs have such bad press in the media that you almost certainly will be subject to some sort of prosecution.As pointed out, only if it's a questionable shoot in the first place.

For me I just dont see it.... Nothing says stop what your doing like hearing a round chambering in a 12Ga.Except the actual blast from the gun. I cannot see the tactical advantage of warning the invader that he is about to be shot. Why give him time to react with his own shot? The whole "rack the shotgun and watch them run in fear" thing is for the movies. If an armed intruder is in my home, the first and last sound his brain will register is BAAA(NNGggg).

[BGutzman]

but 5.56 is extremely lethal at close range.

My experience in combat in Afganistan differs from what you have said... of course the civilian market has ammo that offers vastly superior performance from what the military is allowed to use....

All I can say is for myself I have little use for 5.56 outside of small to mid sized animals but then again no one ever said using the 22 as a starting point for a combat round was a great idea...

It is what it is but it is but my experience was anything but what you have written....

Also I have personally talked with an officer who said that chambering a round in the 12 ga ended confrontations quite often... Apparently at least for him it did have some positive effectiveness...

[Double Naught Spy]

For me I just dont see it.... Nothing says stop what your doing like hearing a round chambering in a 12Ga.

Also I have personally talked with an officer who said that chambering a round in the 12 ga ended confrontations quite often... Apparently at least for him it did have some positive effecitiveness...

Turning on a single light has also been very successful in ending home invasions, but I would not want to count on it working.

As noted by Glenn elsewhere....
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=419452&highlight=rack+shotgun&page=4
Given most economic criminals would be deterred by any clear warning, the magic shotgun rack used in a tactically risky manner is not without critique.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Gee, I said that - how lyrical!

Glenn

[Salmoneye]

I've always wondered why in a Home Defense situation, isn't there already a round in the chamber?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The argument against a round in the chamber for shotguns is that many are not drop safe like most handguns. Also, they have a light trigger pull and usually aren't secured against kids or dogs. Both of these will ND.

The point is well taken though that when you pick up the gun, you should chamber a round and not wait to do a John Wayne sound effect as you warble your war cry on the top of the stairs.

Remember to rack the gun repeatedly, if the BGs don't hear the first rack.

[maestro pistolero]

Remember to rack the gun repeatedly, if the BGs don't hear the first rack.:confused:

I keep a round on the tray in my M1-Super 90. If I am careful, I can rack a round pretty quietly, though not silently. Alternatively, I can rip the bolt with my off-hand while already on target and get the first round off a split-second later.

One could do almost the same thing with a pump gun. Just keep the safety off and the chamber empty. "Clack-clack-bang".

[BGutzman]

I dont know many people that survived a direct hit by a 12 GA slug... in fact I only know of one....... I do not believe the same holds true for the AR platform...

Certainly Glenn has valid points...... The fact of the matter is a 12 Ga is a extremely potent weapon up close which is the distance home defense would probably be....

Of course CNS is always vital but have no doubt a 12Ga slug through the chest is highly likely fatal CNS or not....

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I like my shotgun and have trained with it. I'd be comfortable picking it up or my AR when I hunker down and wait for the monsters in my safe room.

Glenn

[maestro pistolero]

Slugs are devastating, but maybe not the most responsible choice in an urban area. You REALLy need to know your backstop and what is beyond. If it isn't a dirt bank or a rock wall, that slug ain't stopping anytime soon.