NFA Devices for Home Defense (article)

[Andrew Wiggin]

Another article I wrote. The photos are mine as well. I'm just learning Photoshop so I'd be grateful for any criticism you care to offer on both the photos and the writing. The blog is not mine.

The problem with opinions is that people who really don’t have any clue what they’re talking about are happy to offer one. They’ll just repeat any old garbage that they’ve heard on a subject, no matter how ridiculous and unfounded. It probably has a lot to do with universal human foibles and a psychologist could go into great detail about what causes people to do that. Ask a truck driver what he thinks about nuclear power, though, and he’ll expound at great length about the virtues of CANDU style generating facilities and the political feasibility of certifying a LFTR generating station, considering the influence that GE lobbyists have on the NRC. The same problem happens when the topic of home defense guns is discussed. Everybody fancies themselves an attorney or a marine-delta-SEAL-reconsniper instructor. Mention the use of a registered NFA device for defense and they start tearing their garments and foaming at the mouth. Why would someone want to use a registered NFA device in home defense anyway, though? Things like silencers and SBRs are just range toys, right?

The rest is here, if you're interested.

[Sharkbite]

Nicely done.

As one who uses a can on my HD pistol i couldnt agree more.

[Beretta686]

I own my NFA items mostly for the Zombocalypse.

[Skans]

Just use a pistol, shotgun or ordinary rifle for home defense. If you ever did have to shoot an intruder, do you really want to explain how you are a trustee of a weapon in a special trust designed to evade CLEO sign-off, and which has been specially modified and registered with the BATFE to more effectively hunt down and terminate burglars? There's a good chance that you get away with it. There's a slight chance you don't. Who really knows. What I do know is that using NFA for home defense, will cost you more $$$, time and headache than its worth. Castle doctrine or no castle doctrine.

I am not willing to risk going to prison to protect myself or my family from an intruder. Why? Because I don't need to. The pistol I choose to use for home defense is more than adequate. It's easy for me to access. Holds 19 rounds, and easy enough for me to secure. As between a possible undetectable loss in hearing or prison time....guess which one I'm going to choose. I have plenty of other weapons I could choose to use for protection, and perhaps even an NFA weapon.

Part of survival is staying out of prison and holding onto my hard earned money which took countless hours, days and years of my life working my butt off for me to save.

[Andrew Wiggin]

It's not just the permanent hearing damage. Difficulty communicating with family, dispatcher, and police could get someone hurt.

But it sounds as though you think that a politically motivated prosecutor couldn't just as easily paint you as an ignorant hick, Rambo, or cop wannabe no matter what gun you choose. Likewise, a competetent defense counsel should have no trouble refuting those arguments and you shouldn't end up in court over a home defense shooting unless you did something really unusual or live in occupied territory.

[Skans]

But it sounds as though you think that a politically motivated prosecutor couldn't just as easily paint you as an ignorant hick, Rambo, or cop wannabe

Yes, Andrew, that is correct. I think it would be far more difficult a police officer, grand jury and/or prosecutor to make a big stink out of my 20 year old Glock 17 or CZ75B, versus my AC556 or a short barreled AR with a suppressor mounted to it. There's nothing too sexy about stock dull black pistols that don't have any doo-dads mounted to them. There's a good chance they might even have to examine the facts rather than become mesmerized by the weapon of choice before pursuing anything.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Fair enough. I disagree, but I can understand your reasoning.

[Skans]

Andrew, understand that I do think semi-auto military style weapons have their time and place for defense. For example large scale civil unrest where you happen to live in the thick of it, break down of civilization - something along those lines. I just think handguns happen to be the best weapon of choice for defending a home, where shots aren't likely to span more than 30 feet.

5.56 just wouldn't be my round of choice at those distances, and a bulky SBR that is difficult to store/secure, a little more difficult (for me anyway) to use. Frankly, I'm simply more comfortable with a handgun. And, from a practical standpoint.....so is the wife - she's not going to stand for me wondering around the house with a suppressed SBR when things go bump in the night. To be completely honest, it's not just legal reasons, but some practical ones as well, that cause me to really gravitate toward semi-auto pistols for home defense.

[Andrew Wiggin]

I understand. From a technical standpoint, a carbine is easier to hit with, higher capacity, more powerful, and less likely to harm bystanders. But you have to choose the tool with which you are most proficient. If you own a carbine, you might consider taking some defensive carbine courses.

[hartcreek]

If I could afford a NFA item I would use it. My hearing is already shot I have to lip read half the time now when talking to people. The object of a home defense firearm is just that if a person is so worried about their choice of weapon that they are most profecient with being a hindrance should they survive the encounter then maybe they should just surrender to their attacker.

Me I will use what ever weapon increases my odds against the attacker(s).

[Sharkbite]

This has been talked about a number of times. If you dont feel comfortable using a NFA weapon in defense of your loved ones in your own home, then dont.

Under that line of thinking you may not want to use hollowpoints either, cause you will be looked at as someone that WANTED to KILL.

I will use the most effective weapon available to me and deal with whatever the aftermath is. I feel that if the use of force is justified, the weapon used (baseball bat, Butcher knife or suppressed SBR) is not an important factor.

[eldorendo]

I sometimes use a suppressed Glock as a nightstand gun. I'm not concerned about the sophomoric,ignorant blather regarding legal consequences. There is no legal consequence to using a legal firearm with a legal suppressor attached, in a bona fide s.d. shooting.

[Andrew Wiggin]

I absolutely agree. But I think that those that are arguing there is a potential legal consequence are still failing to do a proper risk assessment. A real risk assessment means considering the likelihood of an event AND the potential severity of the consequences.

In this case that means that we start with the premise that you had to shoot someone in your own home and examine how likely it is that you would be charge, indicted, and convicted for some kind of wrong doing and the consequences of that versus the likelihood that using a different weapon would be less effective or result in hearing damage and the consequences. It looks something like this:

Jail: probability = low, severity = moderate, risk = low/moderate

Death: probability = low, severity = extremely high, risk = high

Hearing loss: probability = extremely high, severity = moderate, risk = high


Of course, different folks may view the probability and severity differently and apply their own scale but I think that many folks arguing against the use of NFA devices aren't really getting past the "scary guns bad" point.

[skizzums]

I would think the entire purpose of a pistol silencer would be home defense. sure it would be fun at the range, but only really useful at home. when I do get a silencer, soon I hope, it will be for home-defense. maybe if I was in new England I would have different views, but I don't see people getting prosecuted for killing armed intruders "inside" their homes no matter what they use. if someone thinks that it is an issue, please prove it and maybe i'll change my mind. my HD guns have strong handloads and I wouldn't hesitate to use an SBR with a silencer in a scary sounding caliber(blackout)...

please find a case where any of this has come into play when protecting your home from an intruder.

[tirod]

Most homeowners use handguns, and it's only been recently that the younger generation has adopted AR actions as their first line choice.

So, finding a case in fact is going to be difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. BTW, the guy who used a shotgun and put some rounds thru the door didn't turn out so well, despite the VP's assurances it was a good method.

The issue is whether many even consider using a short barreled rifle at all, and the costs do come into play.

So, don't. Paying the stamp to force you to treat an AR as a rifle with all the loss of CCW use needs consideration. Rifles don't enjoy a lot of freedom compared to a CCW pistol.

Consider the alternative, the AR pistol. Exact same weapon in terms of ballistics, it just doesn't have a stock. At HD ranges accuracy isn't an issue. What many need to consider is how to use the weapon with it's specific issues to fire it accurately.

It's not a fact they must be held in some way against the shoulder, either. Holding it close across the chest with the sights held to eye level works, too. Adopt a shooting posture that enhances that specific gun's issues and learn to resolve them.

Entirely why I am building an AR pistol - the added benefit is that in my state I can use it in the Alternate hunting season where a rifle isn't allowed. Further, I can transport it and carry it the same as a handgun. A rifle has anti poaching restrictions against it. Some in other states can have truck guns ready to hand, in my state it's very questionable and leads an LEO to considering further charges. Very bad juju during hunting season to be cruising around with a loaded rifle in the front. It's called road hunting and it's illegal.

But a pistol in a case concealed ready to hand, not so much legally. If traffic stopped its really no issue here, just inform the officer by handing him your CCW license, done. What you carry will likely not even be mentioned. Plus you can transport across state lines at will, with a stamped SBR you must be in possession of ATF written permission, which at best must be renewed annually.

At home, all the benefits of a SBR without the legal entanglements of being an approved firearms possessor registered with the ATF.

So, yes, a short barreled weapon does have a lot of advantages, even more if it doesn't have a stock. And at HD ranges, the AR pistol is more than accurate enough.

Which leave the noise suppression issue still to be dealt with. It does need some solution.

The worst case scenario often brought up is someone breaking into your house while you are sound asleep. You struggle to awake, get up, grab a gun in the dark, and do what?

Dozens of different life threatening scenarios are always brought up, by the same guys who advise you on the legal liability of your deadly illicit weapon meant to deliberately maim a lost soul returning home from their drunken evening.

Yeah, sure.

I see it as a lot of other things not being done right to prevent it in the first place, you don't just wake up with a knife at your throat and your wife being accosted.

You will hear someone trying to defeat your defenses, and you should be more than past the point of calling 911 and securing your bedroom before they even get to you. Try installing some motion sensors and alarms before spending all the money on an expensive high dollar firearms solution to address the worst case scenario.

Keep a set of electronic earmuffs with the gun and call it good. $80 vs $200 +$800 for the suppressor + Trust fees + etc etc etc. Be that as it may, in my state you can use it for hunting, so, some justification for the cost exists. Or you could just use the e-muffs with the gain up to hear even more.

Goes right along with your infra red cell phone back for finding game. I could buy muffs and the I-reader for less than a silencer and have a lot more utility. At least I will see why my heating bills are up.

On gun forums you get a lot of gun centric solutions, but the reality is that HD is not gun solved, a gun is the tool of LAST resort and if you have other things should have been done or it's going very badly - which are even more extreme odds than a home invasion in the first place.

Lets get honest about it, if you are really worried about home invasion, you should have your home armored up to the point even the local SERT team knows they can't get in. NOBODY discusses that as the first option, they go straight to using a gun because you are forced to accept their last resort scenario.

It's all about internet one-upmanship, not a logical risk assessment of what could actually happen and where you need to improve your security.

Given the odds, don't steal your drug lord's stash or his girlfriend, and you have eliminated 95% of the risk.

That leaves a few other issues like leaving your doors unlocked, or opening it after dark just because someone knocked. Well, duh, did you not look to see who was there?

NOooo, we can't exercise common sense, you always wake up to a knife at your throat and your wife being accosted by leering thugs. Well, move to a different neighborhood, get a dog, and get a life already.

Keep your mental video in check and assess what's really going on. We did have a gang of thugs locally invade two homes last week. The first was a mistake, broad daylight, they left when they figured it out. Reading between the lines, the homeowners opened the door and let them in.

Second home one was killed on the spot. Stolen property was involved, the investigation is ongoing.

Don't take property from others, or their GF, and don't open the door to just anyone. Start with the basics and then when you finally get to what gun to use, you will likely know exactly what you need for that specific set of circumstances.

I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to get in.

[Skans]

if someone thinks that it is an issue, please prove it and maybe i'll change my mind. my HD guns have strong handloads and I wouldn't hesitate to use an SBR with a silencer in a scary sounding caliber(blackout)...

There was a case, I don't know it by name, but it was the one where the home owner executed an intruder. It was clear that the guy broke in to the man's home, but it was equally clear that the homeowner executed him because he was sick of getting robbed (or something like that). I think the homeowner was prosecuted and found guilty.

Tell me that the image of someone with a silencer screwed onto the end of a pistol causing death (even to an intruder) doesn't look like an execution..."just like on TV".

[Andrew Wiggin]

It doesn't. That was easy.

It is the physical evidence of your actions that will determine guilt or innocence. You still haven't provided an example of someone who used a scary gun legally but was somehow convicted.


Also, my silencer doesn't screw on.

[skizzums]

"there was a case"? Okay, can we have a hint. The only intrusion cases I see even go to court is when the homeowner shoots through a window or a door, and they still get found not guilty in the end. But it depends on your state. But I find it good practice NOT to shoot through the front door regardless. I want a case, an ARMED intruder has broken INTO a home and was shot and killed/injured by homeowner, and homeowner was prosecuted. I don't care if he had a 22 or an m60 or a BMG, I just don't see it happening regardless of the weapon the homeowner weilded

I also don't care if the intruder had only a bat or a machine gun, just any old "armed" will do.

And no craziness, like homeowner ties up intruder and blows his head off in the basement. I just want a break IN, homeowner shoots gun, homeowner goes to jail.

[FAS1]

Suppressors are quickly gaining popularity for home defense whether on a SBR or handgun. Seems like a good option considering the hearing concerns of discharging a firearm in a confined space like your home.

[Skans]

This is the case I was thinking of:

A Minnesota man was convicted of premeditated murder yesterday for shooting and killing two teens who broke into his home in 2012. The prosecution claimed Byron Smith made it look as if he wasn't home, then waited for intruders; his home had been a target of break-ins in the past. (A Montana man was charged with murder this week in a remarkably similar case.) His lawyers argued Smith was defending himself, but the prosecution said he went too far by shooting cousins Haile Kifer and Nick Brady nine times.

Sorry, I couldn't think of the guy's name as I was writing my above response - I thought it was a pretty recent case that has been discussed here and who's fact pattern is familiar to most.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by andrew wiggin

It is the physical evidence of your actions that will determine guilt or innocence.

Hopefully you don't really believe that and are trying to be funny. A jury will determine your guilt or innocence. Eyewitness testimony frequently trumps physical evidence.

https://www.law.umich.edu/clinical/i...nvictions.aspx

Following are common causes¹ of wrongful convictions; these are not the only causes, however:


Eyewitness Misidentification Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.

Junk Science Many forensic testing methods have been applied with little or no scientific validation and with inadequate assessments of their significance or reliability. As a result, forensic analysts sometimes testify in cases without a proper scientific basis for their findings. And in some cases, forensic analysts have engaged in misconduct.

False Confessions In many cases, innocent defendants make incriminating statements, deliver outright confessions, or plead guilty. Regardless of the age, capacity, or state of the confessor, what they often have in common is a decision—at some point during the interrogation process—that confessing will be more beneficial to them than continuing to maintain their innocence.

Government Misconduct In some cases, government officials take steps to ensure that a defendant is convicted despite weak evidence or even clear proof of innocence.

Snitches Often, statements from people with incentives to testify—particularly incentives that are not disclosed to the jury—are the central evidence in convicting an innocent person. People have been wrongfully convicted in cases in which snitches are paid to testify or receive favors in return for their testimony.

Bad Lawyering The failure of overworked lawyers to investigate, call witnesses, or prepare for trial has led to the conviction of innocent people.

Various studies estimate that in the United States, between 2.3 and 5% of all prisoners are innocent. One study estimated that up to 10,000 people may be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year.

Eyewitness "misidentification" (or flat out lying) is the leading cause of wrongful convictions.



If you don't intend to kill every witness to your self-defense shooting (like the case that Skans cited), then you better expect the survivors to testify how you snuck up and wrongfully executed your "innocent" home invaders after they had already surrendered.

Given all the histrionics over assault weapons, etc, it would be interesting to find out the influence your legally silenced "murder" weapon would have on the jury (the majority of whom will very likely NOT be gun owners).

I can cite you pages of cases where an innocent person was finally set free after an eyewitness changed their testimony, but none where a legal NFA weapon landed a person in jail. Possibly you could be the first!

My personal decision is to leave all the fancy stuff in the safe and not give the opposing side anything that can be easily used against me, but I don't see an NFA weapon as any particular advantage. However, if your decision is that you need one to defend yourself, go for it!

[Beretta686]

All my NFA goodies stay in my safe and the only things that aren't, are my home defense and truck pistols.

Though I see the usefulness of a can for HD, my cost/benefit analysis is that it's much more likely that I'd get my pistol and can jacked than me having to actually use the pistol. I seriously doubt that a potential burglar is going to want to come up to the 3rd floor of my townhouse with the alarm blaring in the middle of the night, but I still keep my Sig handy.

About the only time I'd use an NFA item for self-defense, is on the ranch where I'd use the SBR or M16 with a can that I roll around the ranch with in the truck.

[scsov509]

This is the case I was thinking of:

A Minnesota man was convicted of premeditated murder yesterday for shooting and killing two teens who broke into his home in 2012. The prosecution claimed Byron Smith made it look as if he wasn't home, then waited for intruders; his home had been a target of break-ins in the past. (A Montana man was charged with murder this week in a remarkably similar case.) His lawyers argued Smith was defending himself, but the prosecution said he went too far by shooting cousins Haile Kifer and Nick Brady nine times.

Sorry, I couldn't think of the guy's name as I was writing my above response - I thought it was a pretty recent case that has been discussed here and who's fact pattern is familiar to most.

Regardless of your opinion on the Byron Smith shooting and conviction, it's not reasonable to argue that the pattern was "familiar to most". Smith shot two separate intruders some 10 minutes apart from one another, moved the first body to a different room while he waited for the second intruder, and then waited nearly a full day before notifying police of the shooting. You can think whatever you want in terms of Smith's shooting being justified or not, but you certainly can't hold it up as a typical account of self defense given all the unique facets of the case and reasons that he was ultimately convicted. How would this specific case have anything to do with the potential use of an NFA device in an otherwise legally justifiable shooting?

[skizzums]

that is what I define as "craziness"......I rest my case. where is the cut and dry, armed man breaks into home, homeowner shoots and homeowner is jailed.

I understand that strange ammo, NFA devices and other unconventional weapons very well could come against someone if in a "gray area" type of situation. but simply protecting your home and family from an armed bad-guy is not one of them, at least not for me. everyone will have their own "comfort-zone" when it comes to these issues, but a silencer, SBR or handloads are something I will never worry about. now, I would never carry one of these items out of the home and use for SD since almost all SD cases seem to be in that "gray area". if I made a horrible mistake and shot an un-armed kid that was in my home by action of desperation or some other motive, I guess then my weapons could come into play, but I will just make sure that I really feel my life is threatened before I pull the trigger.

[Willie Lowman]

The only NFA item I own that I would consider using for HD is one of my 590A1 SBS. There is nothing exciting about it aside from it's 14" barrel. In fact I often have to explain to non-NFA types what makes it special.