The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 6, 2008, 02:52 PM   #1
Conceal Carry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 164
Suppressor for home defence

I am cosidering use of suppressor on my home defence hand gun for two reasons... one if there are more than one intruders, not all of them would know when the weapon is fired and one or two threats are neutrlized... second kids in their bedroom upstairs wouldn't be frightened....what do others on the forum think about this............
Conceal Carry is offline  
Old April 6, 2008, 03:00 PM   #2
David the Gnome
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2007
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 3,092
I think if you shoot someone with a suppressed gun you will probably go to jail, even if they are breaking into your home. A lawyer would eat you alive for it.
David the Gnome is offline  
Old April 6, 2008, 03:08 PM   #3
rantingredneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,728
The intruders will still know as will the kids. They don't work as well as they do in the movies. You'll open yourself up to more potential legal hassles following a justified shooting. Not really worth it IMHO.
rantingredneck is offline  
Old April 6, 2008, 03:19 PM   #4
Johnc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 566
Quote:
I am cosidering use of suppressor on my home defence
Read that part , then stop. 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.
Johnc is offline  
Old April 6, 2008, 03:31 PM   #5
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
Depends on what state, and your DA, and, if the suppressor is legal for you to own.

Other then the PC correctness that has been alluded to above, it is an excellent idea, for the safety of your family, and yourself.
Socrates is offline  
Old April 6, 2008, 03:33 PM   #6
blutarsky
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: TX
Posts: 2
i'd imagine the best possible justification would be so you don't go deaf after firing your gun in a small room or hallway. one shot without ear protection in a small hallway and you'd be hard-pressed to hear well for a while -- at a time when you might just need to be able to listen for further threats, listen for information or instruction on the telephone, etc without that muffled ringing in your ears.

that being said, even if i thought that was a great reason (and it is) i don't think i would use one unless its legality was expressly in-the-clear. plus, in most cases i'd probably have the shotgun or revolver and not a fancy suppressed pistol.
blutarsky is offline  
Old April 6, 2008, 04:39 PM   #7
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,258
I'm going to assume that you mean a fully licensed and legally possessed suppressor. If you have one that is not legal then please take a welding torch to it and turn it into useless and unrecognizable scrap metal now! A felony arrest and conviction would just seriously suck.

Now assuming that it is legally in your possession it has one plus and only one plus, that is it may help protect hearing in the confined space of a home. It also has several bigtime minuses. 1) The size and weight at the end of the barrel will make your weapon less maneuverable in tight places. 2) You lose the psychological shock the BANG!!! inflicts on the bad guys. After all your goal is to stop the immediate threat and to drive his buddies off, not assassinate them. 3) Suppressors are viewed by society at large as an assassin's tool, and the local DA is going to have a field day roasting you slowly over the coals as he or she successfully paints you as a blood thirsty killer laying in wait. 4) I want that loud bang to alert my neighbors and the local police on patrol that I need help right now.

By the way a set of top quality tactical electronic muffs may do a better job than the suppressor. It leaves your hearing not only intact but amplified in stereo while the shot leaves the bad guys' ears ringing.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.

Last edited by sholling; April 6, 2008 at 06:06 PM.
sholling is offline  
Old April 6, 2008, 04:50 PM   #8
furyfour
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 241
sorry to go off topic just a bit

but sholling can you recommend a good set of those? I'm not sure what to look for in them.
__________________
A man who would trade liberty for security deserves neither.
furyfour is offline  
Old April 6, 2008, 05:00 PM   #9
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
First off it is illegal.
Maybe it's illegal where you are, but not in FL.

If you're going to use a suppressor both you and your lawyer need to be able to clearly and intelligently articulate why you used a suppressor. Around this part of the country people illegally inside your home aren't viewed in a good light and I can't remember the last time a homeowner was prosecuted for shooting someone in their home illegally in this county. YMMV


Oh yea, +1 for electronic muffs. I prefer Peltors.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old April 6, 2008, 06:05 PM   #10
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,258
furyfour,

PM sent to avoid taking us off topic.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old April 6, 2008, 07:39 PM   #11
WoofersInc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 224
I'm going to have to agree with the others. You will be strung up when it comes your day in court. I really don't see any way a defense attorney will be able to have a jury not consider you a wanna-be assassin.
Granted it does have benefits such as protecting your hearing but these in no way out-weigh the risks.
One other thing that just hit me. I have several legally owned suppressors. What do you want to bet just the fact that I own these will be used against me in court, should I ever find myself in that position. Just a thought.
WoofersInc is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 05:30 AM   #12
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
LIVE IN THE RIGHT STATE! Realize that the bull we see on tv applies to about 6 states, and not the nation. Yes, there are bad DA's. 99.9% are NOT. Plus, most are elected officials, so, the area and people that elect your DA are the people you live with. Judge by your area. Suppressors are REALLY fun, and,
if not for the illegal Federal laws, should be TOTALLY legal.
Think how much safer, and quieter the average range would be with everyone using a suppressor.

A real good guideline is if you are in a state that is 'shall issue' for CCW, and, has no other restrictions on firearms, along with a Castle law.
Texas and Florida come to mind...Kalifornia:barf:
Socrates is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 06:54 AM   #13
Shadow1198
Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 48
I personally would not use a suppressor. That's all well and good to think about protecting your hearing but, the mere appearance of wrong doing can be enough to lock people up even when they are innocent. A majority of people out there know absolutely nothing about suppressors, don't realize most guns are still very loud even with them, and just associate them with only negative subjects like assassination, crime, etc. Most people don't even know that in many states suppressors are perfectly legal provided you obtain them in the proper manner, and they also don't know that there isn't anything about them that is evil they are simply another inanimate object.

Personally I look at it like this. If someone breaks into my home and I feel my life is threatened, I want the biggest caliber loudest damn gun on the planet. I want there to be plenty of recoil to let me know I'm shooting, and I want plenty of noise to keep myself alert and potentially scare the sh*t out of the bad guy. A self defense shooting is a horribly non-fun, uncomfortable situation. I really see no need to try and make it more comfortable as I want to be alert, on edge, not caught off guard. I guess basically what I'm saying is I want more feedback from the gun. I really can't explain why I feel that way, I just do.
__________________
__________________________________________
Texas people, please check out my local forum:
http://www.texasguntalk.com
Shadow1198 is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 12:27 PM   #14
TacticalDefense1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,276
I believe that you need a class 3 license to purchase a supressor??
TacticalDefense1911 is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 01:16 PM   #15
Alleykat
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 3,668
There is absolutely no legal liability, neither criminal nor civil, for using a legally suppressed weapon in a legitimate case of s.d. The D.A. won't prosecute you, nor, if you're living in a "REAL" state, will you be subject to civil litigation.

The silliness about what kind of weapon you use for s.d. being relevant in a legitimate case of s.d. is just too sophomoric for further comment on my part.
Alleykat is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 01:26 PM   #16
Bill DeShivs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2006
Posts: 7,010
There is no license. If state law allows, anyone can purchase a supressor-if you can legally own a gun. There is a $200 TAX STAMP required from BATFE.
__________________
Bill DeShivs
www.billdeshivs.com
Bill DeShivs is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 06:19 PM   #17
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,492
Wow, lots of hearsay going on. Anyone want to cite instances where the DA came down on a homeowner for shooting an intruder bent on harming his family with a supressed handgun?

What states don't allow supressors for use in HD situations if they're normally allowed?

I'm confused.
chris in va is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 06:41 PM   #18
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,258
Quote:
Wow, lots of hearsay going on. Anyone want to cite instances where the DA came down on a homeowner for shooting an intruder bent on harming his family with a supressed handgun?
Care to site a verifiable number of how many times a suppressed handgun was used in self defense in the owners home at all?
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 06:53 PM   #19
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
I, too, would be interested in hearing about any instances of a shooting involving a legally owned suppressor incurring any legal liability. Anyone?
Don H is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 06:59 PM   #20
bclark1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,531
So Bond pistol-snipes the whole breaching team without waking the kids?

I'd personally want my family to know to get to safety whether or not I'd given them a heads up. Gunshots are generally a good indicator to get out of bed, lock the door and call the police.

If you've ever hunted, you know the bang doesn't bother much in the moment. I consider noise a non-issue in defensive situations. As for flash, I'll avoid shooting hot 500SW out of a 2" barrel on moonless nights.

Castle Doctrine or not, I wouldn't shoot someone just for being in my place. Unless it's Dr. No's entry element with SMGs at high ready, I'm probably going to confront a trespasser before decide whether to blast them to the next. Yes, it's a higher standard than the law requires in some places, but if you're technically and tactically proficient, making sure of who you're shooting and why would before executing would be the ethical move.

As for liability, it'd be contingent upon your state law. Whether or not a suppressor is a legitimate aggravating factor in a finding against self-defense is less important than how well an anti-gun prosecutor would argue it to a jury. A good shoot is a good shoot regardless of what's used, but where the law is not perfectly clear there's a lot of gray area for BS to fill up (my old home of Illinois comes to mind, although no silencers there).
bclark1 is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 06:59 PM   #21
Alleykat
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 3,668
Quote:
Care to site a verifiable number of how many times a suppressed handgun was used in self defense in the owners home at all?
Probably be a lot easier, wouldn't it, for you to find case cites for some of those cases upon which you based your forecasts of doom, regarding the use of a suppressor in s.d. situation? I realize you life in Kalifornia; ergo, my caveat regarding REAL states.

This comes under the same sophomoric silliness that we get on forums like this regarding the use of modified weapons in cases of s.d. Most of that crap was ginned up by a few non-lawyer, non-REAL law enforcement, seminar-givers/gunrag writers.

Get your legal advice from real lawyers, for Pete's sake! I do .
Alleykat is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 08:45 PM   #22
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,258
Quote:
I realize you life in Kalifornia; ergo, my caveat regarding REAL states.
Just an FYI... I live in a little county called Riverside, before that I lived in a little county called San Bernardino. You probably haven't heard of them but these two counties together are about the size of Tennessee. They along with Orange County and most of the remaining inland counties make up a population so conservative that our Democrat Speaker of the Assembly has publicly stated he doesn't even consider them to be part of the state. My little town would fit in just fine in Kansas, or Montana, or Tennessee. The part that you think of as Kalifornia is actually a narrow coastal strip maybe 50 miles deep, with a salient sticking out from the San Fransisco bay area to form an extension bubble of leftest lunacy around the state capital. The other 8/10s of the state is actually sane it's just that our votes don't count.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 08:49 PM   #23
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,450
There is a recent law journal article available online that discusses the use of "silencers." The author looked at offenses in the federal court system and in the California court system. Two brief quotes:

Talking about the federal system:
Quote:
Comparing the silencer conviction data with ordinary
firearm conviction data shows that guns “equipped
with a silencer” are only one-third as likely to be used to
kill or injure, one-half as likely to be actively employed,
and one-half as likely to be used by someone with a prior
record. Guns equipped with a silencer, rather than being
more dangerous and more likely to be used by professional
criminals or repeat offenders, are far less dangerous
and less likely to be employed by professional criminals.
Turning to California:
Quote:
Finally, 22 percent of defendants in silencer prosecutions
had a criminal record, while 49 percent of those prosecuted
in California for crimes involving ordinary unsilenced
firearms had a criminal record (see Table 5).

For more information, check out http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 09:14 PM   #24
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
The basic problem is it's a Federal crime. That trumps state law, if on the same point. Your chances of a fair or reasonable deal in Federal court is much less then in state court. We used to somewhat negotiate in pretrial in S.F., but, if you go into Federal Court, it's take it or leave it, and, most of the time, you have judges elected for life, who do what ever they want, and don't care much about getting reversed on appeal, so, they are free to make up whatever they want.

If you defend yourself with a silenced weapon, in your home, depending on Castle Doctrine, or local law, you could be prosecuted for some form of homocide, or assault and battery. If found guilty in state court, or if the evidence fits, you could be yanked up to Federal court, prior to trial, for prosecution there.

The bottom line is it's an absurd law, that makes no sense at all. Silerncers, in particular on hi-powered rifles, that combine the features of a muzzle brake, reducing recoil and lift, combined with reducing noise, are a WONDERFUL
and effective technique for protecting the shooter, and being able to enjoy the rifle.

Consider when this law was passed: during the FDR administration, and, you will see why it still exists. The FBI, BATF, and the Federal bench, has to have something to enforce to justify their bloated existence.

Someone will have to challenge the law someday, but, more likely, it will be plead out, so the law continues...
Socrates is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 09:18 PM   #25
☼SIG☼
Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 2008
Posts: 42
Quote:
I believe that you need a class 3 license to purchase a supressor??
No license required... only a Tax Stamp... at least here in Florida.

I was in a local gun shop the other day and they had a varierty of supressors on display for sale... the catch is they usually make you buy the handgun and supressor together as a package... and they aren't cheap.

Some other interesting benefits of the Class III Stamp here in Florida are, you can also legally own full auto rifles (AK-47s, UZIs, Mac-10s), sawed-off shot-guns (entry guns) and for the Daily Double, you can even get a UZI or Mac-10 with a supressor!

☼SIG☼ is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14254 seconds with 7 queries