Suppressor for home defence

[Socrates]

Sadly, I think this thread is a sad testimony to how far some states have fallen, thanks to themselves and the Federal government, and, the difference in thinking that occurs in people when subjected to such situations. Here we have testimony to the freedoms this country was founded on, and, sadly, how far it's fallen in some other states. I don't think anyone is wrong, it's just that the nightmare of illegal laws has totally affected how people subjected to them live in fear.
I certainly feel that in Kali, where I understand the legal aspects, but, at the same time, after the Duke rape case, and a few other total abuse of prosecutorial power, for political gain, I also am concerned about my choice of home defense weapons: a mac 10 45 with a suppressor
and 32 round mags...

[Zak Smith]

Like I said before, Johnc, your same fear-mongering "argument"-- oh wait, it's not an argument, just a base fear, with nothing besides that to back it up. In any case, it can be "used" against anything that anyone thinks is scary: .45 ACP (too big), Glock (plastic and black), Para/STI (too "high capacity"), a compact (too concealable) .357/.44 revolver (too powerful), a basic Winchester 1300 "Defender" (too much firepower).

You say that no-one has to cite such a law, yet you insist there are "legal ramifications." I asked you to cite either a relevant law or any court case [...]. That's exactly what you'd need to back up your claim that there "are legal ramifications". Otherwise, it's just something you made up.

[HankB]

IANAL, but if the suppressor is legally owned (i.e, valid Federal tax stamp, no state/local prohibitions) and it's a good shoot, I see no problem. In fact, if not for the prohibitive cost, my home defense weapon would likely be something like an HKMP5SD.

Here in TX, the laws on the use of deadly force in self defense, particularly in one's home, are pretty clear, and favor the homeowner. Moreover, recent changes in TX law provide a great deal of protection from subsequent civil lawsuits, assuming a "good" shoot in the first place. I just see no problem with the use of a suppressor in legitimate home defense. In fact, I've been considering purchase of a suppressor for just that reason . . . but to keep the OAL of the weapon reasonable, I'd probably have to SBR it as well, meaning another $200 tax stamp.

Hmmm . . . here's a thought . . . assuming we're not in TX, what if, by the time LEOs arrive, the legally-owned suppressor were no longer attached to the firearm? Are the police likely to ask "Did you remove a suppressor from this?" when they're investigating? Don't you have the right to remain silent if they do? Are you going to volunteer ANY information until speaking with an attorney?

[snolden]

Silencers are wonderful, but they add length to a handgun that is already hard to retain with good weapon retention training. It is nearly impossible to use a retention position at contact distance (0-3 feet) with a silencer. I would steer away from a silenced handgun for simply that reason. The electronic 'muffs are a wonderful idea and I had never thought of that.

Pistol silencers are offensive weapons for a reason.

Now a rifle with two places to grasp the weapon would be usable but again you should learn some hand to hand skills with your long arm.

Like was mentioned above, I am amazed by the ignorance shown in this thread. It is ok if you don't know but if you have never actually read the rules don't assume the television is right.

[Johnc]

Zak, Please understand that it is not my position that we should not be able to use whatever legal means we see fit for SD. I live in a state where people question every type of SD shooting. Further, just the legal ownership of a gun is a battle. It is not my intention or position that the use of a legal silencer should bring legal consequences. It is my position and the position of other posters that it will cause you serious legal consequences. Some years ago I read in a firearms publication to avoid the use of certain ammunition for SD because of reputations they had acquired as "cop killers". One legal expert even represented that the name of a weapon may cause the jury to show prejudice against a defendant.

If you don't believe me, call your state law board and ask them. Contact a firearms attorney and pose the question. Or wait and see if any legal experts from this forum weigh in on this thread.

[Socrates]

Let me briefly state the law in this state, and, as I saw it put into action by good/Fantastic DA's in the home of the liberal-facists, San Francisco. The ONLY issue brought up was if the person defending themselves was justified in shooting. In other words, was that person reasonably in fear of their life? That's the WHOLE issue in Kali San Francisco, period.
Evidence to support that requires proximity: that the person defended against was within a reasonable distance to accomplish severe bodily harm, and, was there a reasonable fear, or some sort of weapon, to indicate evidence that the person intended to harm the other. Example: BART train: bad guy is laying on the ground with a face full of directional pepper spray, but, he's still holding his knife.

Just remember: if your DA is elected, it's in his political interest to put his name in the paper and on TV, and, on issues that got him elected. If you live in Florida, Texas, or any of the 43 states that support the Constitution, or even better, in an ironic sort of twist, Louisiana that was founded on Napoleonic code, you are fine, and probably don't live in the fear that us in Kali do.

[Bill DeShivs]

The entire problem is ATTORNEYS. Can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em! A frivolous lawsuit can be brought for anything. As I said-given the proper circumstances there is no way criminal charges can be brought.
BTW- you will not go deaf shooting a few shots from any gun in your home. Loud stereos, traffic, construction, most any loud noise can cause hearing loss-but it's a cumulative effect, not an immediate effect.
I once shot a 10 inch barreled .30 carbine in a car. Don't do that!

[Zak Smith]

It is my position and the position of other posters that it will cause you serious legal consequences.

Then it should be no problem for you to CITE. That's how it works. You make a claim-- you have to back it up.

-z

[varoadking]

Bad idea. First off it is illegal. Second, your children would be better off with the one time sound of a firearm waking them up then the constant sound of poverty from your arrest, conviction and subsequent civil suit(s). Your making the bad guys look good by resorting to unnecessary and illegal tactics.

[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]?

[Socrates]

The entire problem is ATTORNEYS.

Bull. The problem is we elect people to the legislature that have no idea what the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are.
Attorneys are our only hope to overturn this entire body of illegal law, written by elected officials, and passed when FDR had everyone thinking he was God, and, in fact, ran the country like he was a King.

That, and the fact that DA's are elected, and want publicity to further their political careers lead to the only really bad situations, along with the 'bad facts make bad law' cases....

[varoadking]

I am surprised and disappointed by the level of irrational rhetoric in this thread.

No Sh1t, me too...

[Johnc]

The typical citizen is poorly informed about the legality of silencers and generally associates them with the "bad guys". While I know of no cases that have gone bad for legal silencer users, I would venture to guess that the use of one in a self-defense shooting would complicate things to one degree or another. It's certainly not going to HELP your legal situation.

That quote was from JohnKSa a staff member here on TFL. He weighed in on a similar thread regarding silencers. If, as he states "the typical citizen is poorly informed about the legality of silencers and associates them with "bad guys"", who is going to be sitting in a jury box for your trial? The untypical citizen? What about the part where it would "COMPLICATE" things? Oh yes, and the "not going to Help your legal situation"?

[Mas Ayoob]

Johnc's post referencing JohnKSa's comments, immediately above, bears re-reading. It pretty much nails the core problem that the suppressor would predictably bring with it.

Like others in this thread, I've not run across a case of a private citizen shooting a criminal in self-defense with a suppressed firearm. I have, however, run across a number of cases where the use of a semi-automatic military style weapon rained down "assault rifle" BS from opposing counsel on the citizen who fired.

A closer extrapolation comes from looking at self-defense shootings with legally owned full-auto weapons. Socrates already mentioned the case in Virginia. Both the defendant and his attorneys agreed that if he had shot the dirtbag with a 12-gauge pump gun instead of a Ruger AC556 on full auto, he never would have gone through the long and expensive ordeal of trial. He was finally and correctly acquitted, but that defendant will be the first to tell you today not to use a gun that brings down that sort of misguided accusations.

John and John, above, pointed out that the general public sees "silencers," like full auto arms, as forbidden weaponry used by thugs. The suppressor in particular smacks of "Rambo," "James Bond," "hit men," and "assassination." Those are not images we want to put at the disposal of attorneys who want to destroy our credibility as the Good Guys n' Gals.

Think about it: in OUR world, the shooters' world, how many times have we all run across gun people who were totally surprised to learn that full auto weapons and suppressors were perfectly legal in many jurisdictions? Where should we suppose that leaves the NON-gun people who end up on the jury that judges us?

+1 to the suggestion of using active hearing protection instead, which gives the added advantage in some models of amplifying small sounds that could give an intruder's position away, and otherwise might not be heard by the home defender.

[JB Books]

First of all, if you own a Class 3/NFA weapon, you should own an adequate safe in which to store it. You should NOT have it lying on, or propped up against the night stand. There is very little a fully auto sub machine gun or full auto rifle can do that a police type shot gun and/or high cap 9mm cannot and with a lot less head ache.

Because here's the kind of headache you might get: If I were to take a case against someone who shot an intruder, my job, indeed my mission, would be to portray the shooter as a gun crazed whack job who was eagerly awaiting the opportunity to kill another human being. Did he have a CC permit? I would ask questions about whether the shooter attended gun shows. How many firearms he owned?(Hopefully more than one.) What type? Did he belong to a range? What was his reputation at the range? Did he brag a lot? Or talk about shooting someone? Did he belong to a forum like this? If so, how often did he post? What were the contents of those posts? What sorts of movies did he check out from the video store or NetFlix (hopefully lots of Eastwood and Bronson)? What kind of training did he have? I'd supeona his CC bills and hope to find internet gun purchases and books from "self defense" institutes ala the old Paladin Press.

I'd inquire about all aspects of the defendant's personal life. I'd ask whether owning so many firearms was a substitute for his lack of confidence as a man. I'd try to get under his skin during the horrific depo I would conduct. In fact, I'd hire an off duty officer to act as security and frisk the defendant (and hope his defense lawyer would allow him to be searched). And if I could make him lose his temper, I'd say something smart like "Geez, don't shoot me."

I'd have family members of the "victim" and their ministers in the press regularly bemoaning their loss, and questioning why Mr. Home Owner felt the need to own more than one gun. I'd constantly refer the "Defendent's arsenal" and "stock pile" of weapons. By the time I was done with Mr. Home Owner he wouldn't want to own a cap gun much less a real firearm, and my jury (who from voire dire forward would have heard that the case was not about owning a firearm, because ladies and gentlemen, we all have a right to defend ourselves in our home. What we don't have a right to do is to stockpile weapons and murder an innocent boy. Dirty Harry is a movie, and while it's a great movie, it shouldn't be a blueprint for someone's life); my jury would award me everything Mr. Homeowner couldn't bankrupt out (and maybe I'd strip him of the protection of bankruptcy by convincing them it was an intentional tort).

And this is giving the subject 5 minutes worth of thought. So, do yourself a favor, if you own a Class 3 weapon; keep it in the safe. Don't use as a home defense weapon. Use something that a greedy horse's rear like me could not use to screw up your life.

[Zak Smith]

My state, Colorado (amongst others) provides civil immunity as part of its "castle doctrine."

[DonR101395]

JB,
I'm assuming you don't work for free, so how do you get around the immunity from civil action as stated in many of the castle doctrine laws? I understand you can file a law suit for nearly anything these days, but from my research here in FL they are summarily dismissed if no criminal charges are brought against the shooter. That leaves the plaintiff with both sets of legal fees and since many of these lawsuits are filed based on contingent fees, it leaves the attorney without his fee.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

[ChicagoTex]

Zak,

Texas has that as well, but I'll bet, like in Texas that immunity only applies if a grand jury finds no fault in your actions. An aggressive District/State Attorney could potentially convince a grand jury you were a maniac, have it brought to trial, and even if you were acquitted criminally, your civil protection is no longer present.

At least that's how it is in TX.

In short, avoid aggravating factors and don't depend on the letter of the law to save you, always remember first and foremost the courts are run by people with feelings and agendas all their own (prosecutors, juries, judges, etc) who don't always adhere to the letter of the law (even though they theoretically should).

[Zak Smith]

CRS 18-1-704.5 doesn't have any qualifiers like that.

[Socrates]

JBBooks:
What do you think of the cases cited in the law review article, previous? What state do you work in, and, what are the laws in your state?
How old are you, and, what's your bar number?

Hi Mas. I'm trying to get some civilized loads for the .500 Max if you ever come out...

Nice to have both of you posting here. The combination of your knowledge brings up a point I've thought of for a long time: DON'T HAVE A HOME DEFENSE, OR CCW GUN, IF YOU CAN AVOID IT. Have a gun designed for some sort of recreation, hunting, what ever, and, if forced, the only thing you had was the ....etc...

I don't have a gun for home defense. I have hunting pistols, rifles, and that's it. I target shoot, and hunt, and, that's ALL I do. If someone breaks in, I make do with what I can reach, period.

I find the statistical likelyhood of a home defense, or SD scenario is so low, that it really doesn't justify owning one. I enjoy the mental development, and knowledge developed from the study of firearms, and, the observational value of the effects of different calibers. My main concern is being able to see the bullet hole in the target, when I shoot it.

I've often thought the most likely argument is that a SD shotgun is more likely to be attacked then a hunting rifle, or some other form of weapon, used, since what else do you do with your HD shotgun? Can't target shoot at our range with it, etc.

That said, keep in mind that folks in Louisiana, probably the most property defense friendly state, law wise, in the union, had some scum sucking police officer that won't return weapons taken during Katrina, and, even though an elected official, a DA that won't
enforce the laws he swore by oath to uphold on taking office, and, insure the property is returned to the states citizens. More impeachments, civil charges filed against government employees that fail to follow the law need to be filed...

[Zak Smith]

DON'T HAVE A HOME DEFENSE, OR CCW GUN, IF YOU CAN AVOID IT

There is a ridiculous extreme, and this is it. I do see your point, however-- CCW is a good thing and everyone who carries has a "carry gun." The majority of states have CCW, and everyone who carries regularly has a de facto "carry gun"-- the gun they actually carry concealed. CCW is good for the victim who is forced to use it and it is good for the general population due to the deterrent effect.

[JB Books]

Don:

You're right, I don't work for free. Frankly, if it's not a truck/car wreck I am not interested. However, my thoughts were along the lines of ChicagoTex. I would not depend on the letter of the law for anything. (If you have any familiarity with legal malpractice/legal negligence cases you'll understand what I mean.) Would you want your fate in the hands of 12 laypeople?

Also, I think I should have expanded the situation to include the so-called "Stand your Ground" laws. Even in states that have passed such laws, CCW holders run a risk.

My point is simply this: Why bring a potential host of problems upon your head simply because you want to use a suppressed pistol for home defense? To me, it's not even a close call. Use a regular firearm.

Also, if you have ever been a defendant in a lawsuit, you know it is a unpleasant ordeal (even if you are right and going to win).

Finally, I think the shooter would invite a lot of misery on themself for using such a pistol. And for what?

[JB Books]

Socrates, I am 40 and live in a state in the southwest and I am what you would consider a degenerate ambulance chaser.

I don't think there is anything wrong with owning firearms. I own quite a few. I don't think there is anything wrong with owning Class 3 weapons. I own one and am planning to purchase another after I do a little more research. Hell, I attend guns shows.

My point is not really to debate or discuss statutes, case law, or legal articles. My point is I think it is stupid to use a suppressed pistol or any NFA firearm for home defense (unless you had no other choice obviously). My point is that I think the use of such a weapon would cause a lot of problems for an individual who was otherwise just protecting himself and/or his family.

I wouldn't take a case like this, just as I have never taken a case against a police officer or state trooper, but I am familiar with the unmitigated BS that a person can be put through by the litigation process.

Also, don't take it to the extreme, I don't think there is anything wrong with a CCW permit or a HD weapon.

[Crosshair]

Living in North Dakota with out Castle Doctrine law. If someone broke into my house I would be justified in using deadly force. It doesn't matter if I shoot them with a handgun, a shotgun, a rifle, paintball gun or crossbow. Decapitate them with a machete, katana, or fire axe. Or hit them over the head with a frying pan, bowling pin, or a copy of the FFL regulations. The weapon used is irrelevant. Use deadly force until the threat is eliminated.

The fear of using a suppressor to me seems to be baseless fear. If I think it's practical and effective, I'll use it. I'm not going to sacrifice my hearing if I feel like I can prevent that without sacrificing the weapons performance/maneuverability.

[JohnKSa]

Texas has that as well, but I'll bet, like in Texas that immunity only applies if a grand jury finds no fault in your actions.

Frankly, I have not gotten a straight answer on what level of "absolution" a citizen needs to claim the civil immunity clause. The law states that: A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

I have not been able to find any qualified person who can clearly state what "justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code" means. Tried & acquitted is certainly going to qualify, but I've not found anyone who can say for certain if a grand jury "no bill" will as well. It's even less clear what happens in cases where a person is not even charged.

There is a ridiculous extreme, and this is it.

I would agree if it is stated categorically that everyone must follow that rule or be in danger of prosecution in the event of a self-defense incident. However, I think there is a definite benefit to being able to say (and have it obviously backed up by circumstances) that you're a recreational shooter/hunter and that you never intended for your guns to be used against another person. That plays well with the average non-gunny person on the street. A lot of people who strongly believe in the right to self-defense are uneasy about those who spend any significant time or effort training to "shoot people".

Before the CHL laws came to TX, I never shot at humanoid targets and never spoke openly about self-defense. Not because I think those things are bad/wrong/questionable but because I could tell from what I heard, read, and observed around me that there was a benefit to being seen as a recreational gun owner, not one of "those tactical types", should I ever have to use a gun in self-defense.

That all went down the drain when I got my CHL and frankly, I didn't give it a second thought. The benefits of being able to legally carry a pistol far outweighed the nebulous benefit of being perceived as a recreational gun owner. Now I'm on record as spending time and effort specifically on firearm self-defense, "shooting people", as some would say. Will it get me jail time some day? I SERIOUSLY doubt it, in fact the thought is almost laughable since I live in TX. But it might, and I can't emphasize "might" enough, make a difference in a situation where the circumstances are not obviously on my side. Still I don't spend any time worrying about it.

I'm not going to defend the position dogmatically because I obviously don't follow it myself and because it's not based on hard evidence, only my person thoughts and observations, but it's something to think about, particularly for those in less "gun friendly" locales.

[DonR101395]

but it's something to think about, particularly for those in less "gun friendly" locales.

+1

I know I'm distorting your post, but what I choose to carry in FL may not be what I would choose if I could legally carry in Chicago or on a smaller scale county to county. FL as a whole is gun and NFA friendly. Certain counties may be gun friendly, but NFA unfriendly. Personally I wouldn't have second thoughts about using a suppressor inside my home. I wouldn't use one in a hotel room in a county I know is not NFA friendly.