[.]

I had the same perception as Rich: that it is one thing to do legal battle for justification of self-defense with a deadly weapon, but quite another to be burdened with the stigma of using what may be construed as a "destructive device". The former being arguable as a reasonable response, but the latter showing exceptional effort to obtain and retain legally and perhaps could be argued as a "preparation" for battle, which in turn weakens the self-defense argument, especially for the non-operator.

Any folks out there with courtroom experience on either side of this issue?