The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 7, 2008, 09:33 PM   #26
Bill DeShivs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2006
Posts: 7,088
Socrates
It's only a federal crime if the supressor is illegal. If the suppressor is legally owned, and the shoot is a justifiable one, there is no way one could be prosecuted in criminal court (except maybe in San Francisco!)
Civil court is another matter, but a decent attorney should be able to handle it with no problem.
__________________
Bill DeShivs
www.billdeshivs.com
Bill DeShivs is online now  
Old April 7, 2008, 09:59 PM   #27
JLiso
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2008
Posts: 5
Silencers are illegal here in Cali. However, I have to agree with the previous poster about the relevance of one in a righteous self defense case. In terms of the self defense claim, does it really matter whether you use a .50 cal machine gun or some other legal weapon, provided that your defense is lawful? It doesn't seem like that should be a factor in the determination of an actual and reasonable belief in great bodily injury or death to you. I can see the point that the reasonableness of your fear could be affected by the weapon of choice in the situation. Overall though, I think the choice of weapon is irrelevant.

Now, whether you would be separately prosecuted for the separate offenses of possession of an illegal silencer or machine gun is a different story. That would depend on a lot of different things.

Interesting topic.
JLiso is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 10:15 PM   #28
Alleykat
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 3,668
I realize that there are a lot of good people, even a lot of conservative gun owners, in Kalifornia; however, Kalifornians send folks like Boxer and Feinstein to represent them in the U.S. Senate. Kalifornia also has some of the most outrageous federal judges (9th circuit) in the country, not to mention some of the most draconian gun laws of which I'm aware.

It's not against federal law to own a silencer, assuming that one jumps through the required hoops. It's not always necessary for the $200 tax to be paid when a silencer or f.a. weapon is transferred to a private citizen.

I don't currently own a suppressed weapon, but when/if I do, it'll also be a f.a. weapon, and if I ever needed to use that suppressed weapon to defend myself or others, I wouldn't hesitate to do so, with absolutely no fear of prosecution or civil litigation. All my Glocks are equipped with 3.5# connectors, including my daily carry piece. I also wouldn't hesitate to use any of my Glocks for s.d., with that same confidence that I'll neither be prosecuted nor sued.
Alleykat is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 10:58 PM   #29
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
Alleykat:
I respect your position, and, I'm a bit jealous of folks living in Florida. Looks like I could get a mansion for what I'm paying in rent, in a place I don't like.

That said, the incredible Medusa's hair that is our legal system, making a suppressor a crime worse then murder, rape, etc. is truly a sad commentary on how far the Federal and state laws have overlapped an area that is clearly denied them by the Constitution.

Bill: My understanding currently is Class III's are pretty much impossible to get, much like a CCW in Kali.
In fact, pretty much anyone that could get a Class III would be some relation to military, police, DA, or a judge. Us common folk aren't allowed, or can't afford...

Sig: What's a tax stamp? What are the prices like on the full auto weapons? 3k for a 300 dollar mac?

What do you mean by a package, and they aren't cheap?

Sholling:
I'd considered moving down there, since our rent is going through the roof, and, I don't even like where I live, and, it's fairly conservative. Still, the CCW numbers aren't wonderful, in Orange County in particular, though SB and a few others give me hope, I just like being on the ocean, ...

I have knowledge of one friend who was prosecuted for having a silencer and full auto weapons. Never went to court. He worked for Lockheed, and the plea bargain kept him out of jail, no record, and I got to have the guns, minus the selector switches and minus the silencers, for 3 years.

The other is that guy with the knife company, who worked for H&K, and defended himself with a machine gun, after being chased into the H*K parking lot. Lost his job, 100 grand later he was acquitted, but, he never should have been dragged through the legal process in the first place.
Socrates is offline  
Old April 7, 2008, 11:43 PM   #30
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
I'd considered moving down there, since our rent is going through the roof, and, I don't even like where I live, and, it's fairly conservative. Still, the CCW numbers aren't wonderful, in Orange County in particular, though SB and a few others give me hope, I just like being on the ocean,
OC was actually one of the easier places to get a permit under ex-Sheriff Corona (now under federal incitement). Heck with enough money you could have become an assistant sheriff.

San Berdoo has a reputation for being pretty easy to get a permit, Riverside is harder but it is possible if you can think up a reason. The upside about where I live is that you can buy a brand new 2500sqft for under $300k. The down side is that work is as hard to find as hen's teeth.
__________________
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 8, 2008 at 12:15 AM.
sholling is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 12:03 AM   #31
Lawyer Daggit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Posts: 1,181
I agree with the prevailing feeling. Even if you are in a state or territory where it is legal you will come to regret the references to 'silencer'. In a Court you will be depicted as a predator.
Lawyer Daggit is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 01:50 AM   #32
sjb57us@yahoo.com
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2008
Posts: 2
For a suppessor you pay a $200 tax stamp and fill out the form and wait a couple months til ATF approves you,if you can buy a firearm you can buy a suppressor in statesthat allow their posession. as far as select fire weapons,the general public can only own the weapons in civilian hands before the 1986 ban there is IIRC a $400 tax stamp and weapon cost anywhere from about $5000 for a mac to around $15000 for an M-16,you have to fill out the form and in most cases be approved by a high ranking LEO like Chief of Police,Sheriff,or a Judge.As far as shooting somebody with a silenced weapon has no bearing on whether you were justified to use deadly force or not,if you were justified here in Texas it will never even make it to court a Grand Jury will no-bill you,under castle doctrine we do not have to retreat,you break into a home in texas you are asking to get shot.And under castle doctrine you are exempt from civil lawsuit
sjb57us@yahoo.com is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 05:01 AM   #33
RWB482
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 29, 2008
Posts: 5
I'm all for taking intruders out, but my thinking is if there are two and one hears shots and thinks his buddy was just taken out upstairs the punk is likely to get the hell out of dodge rather than stick around to be taken out as well. The safest scenario for you and your kids is the intruder out of your house, if you can accomplish that without putting yourself or the kids in danger I think that is the best case scenario. Obviously there is no way to tell how it would go down, just a different perspective. Using a suppressor to essentially stalk them one by one as they roam your house sounds too Hollywood for me to digest.
RWB482 is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 10:44 AM   #34
Cloudpeak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2005
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 288
I would prefer to buy a good, electronic headset and keep it on my nightstand. For the $200 spent on the tax for a suppresor, you have something that will enhance hearing in a SD situation, protect your hearing (as a guy who wears hearing aids, I feel this is very important) and you can use the headset any time you shoot any gun.

I have a "Pro Ears Dimension Plus" which cost a just a bit more than the tax, let alone the cost of a supprsor and is considerably cheaper than hearing aids.

Cloudpeak
Cloudpeak is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 10:49 AM   #35
furyfour
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 241
i agree with RWB482

and the point is to eliminate the threat, not to assassinate the intruders
__________________
A man who would trade liberty for security deserves neither.
furyfour is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 11:52 AM   #36
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
Why all this B-S about "stalking", "sniping", and "assassinating" intruders? Fact is, shooting any firearm indoors without hearing protection will cause hearing damage. Furthermore, communicating is much more difficult during and after sustaining 160+ dB reports. Silencers are legal in the majority of states with a valid Form 4 (for non SOTs). They incur no time penalty to use, while hearing protection only protects the wearer (the shooter), and takes time to put on.

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

-z
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 12:53 PM   #37
Alleykat
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 3,668
That's absurd.
Alleykat is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 12:57 PM   #38
Alleykat
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 3,668
Quote:
Even if you are in a state or territory where it is legal you will come to regret the references to 'silencer'. In a Court you will be depicted as a predator.
That's a truly absurd statement. In my state, there's no mention of the type of weapon used, when the application of letal force is permitted. Civil suits are prohibited in such cases here.
Alleykat is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 01:36 PM   #39
ChicagoTex
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2008
Location: DFW Metroplex
Posts: 1,909
this is a bad joke, right?
ChicagoTex is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 04:31 PM   #40
marino13
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2008
Location: orlando,fl
Posts: 76
silencers

ok--i got sucked into this discussion--im in fl AND what are the laws for these things--shoot-if they're legal,why not save your hearing--if bg's are in my house illegally,too bad--dead men tell no tales,if i'm correct---which is THE LAST RESORT
marino13 is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 04:44 PM   #41
CraigC
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2001
Location: West Tennessee
Posts: 4,300
I have to agree with Alleykat. Zak Smith also brings up important tactical concerns. There's a lot of legal spectating going on here and few facts. As long as the suppressor is legal and the shooting justified, the suppressor will have no legal bearing on the outcome. Just like handloads for self defense, show me legal precedence and I will change my tune.

An indoor gunfight is entirely different from firing one shot at a whitetail outdoors. You WILL sustain permanent hearing damage.
CraigC is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 04:56 PM   #42
Jermtheory
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 20, 2007
Posts: 1,283
Quote:
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.
thank you.

sorry,this is as far as i read.

someone finally started making some sense and i was already :barf:....didnt think i could stomach any more of what had came before the quoted.
Jermtheory is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 05:27 PM   #43
Johnc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 566
Quote:
Just like handloads for self defense, show me legal precedence and I will change my tune.
I believe that in the past here on TFL threads have been made on legal precedence of hand loads for SD. If I recall correctly Mas Ayoob (a member here) has authored on the topic before offline and perhaps even online.

It is my belief that unless, hypothetically. a silencer was made completely legal on a federal level without restriction and without a stamp needed, it would be unwise to use one for SD purposes. What we all have to understand is that you may be found completely innocent criminally in a SD shooting only to face a lengthy (and expensive) civil suit. Remembering that the burden of proof is much less in a civil suit. Attorney fees, the cost of expert witness testimony, loss of work related income and the stress of a civil suit can bring a person down both financially and emotionally and this is assuming that you win.

Last edited by Johnc; April 8, 2008 at 06:21 PM.
Johnc is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 06:04 PM   #44
RWB482
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 29, 2008
Posts: 5
I made the "stalking" comment because it sounded to me as though the original poster cited a tactical advantage to being able to take out one intruder without another hearing it. I made the argument maybe if they hear it the other(s) will cut and run, which is the best scenario for you and your family. If I misunderstood so be it. Obviously if hearing protection is a primary motive for using a suppressor who could argue against that?
RWB482 is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 07:20 PM   #45
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
Quote:
It is my belief that unless, hypothetically. a silencer was made completely legal on a federal level without restriction and without a stamp needed, it would be unwise to use one for SD purposes. What we all have to understand is that you may be found completely innocent criminally in a SD shooting only to face a lengthy (and expensive) civil suit. Remembering that the burden of proof is much less in a civil suit. Attorney fees, the cost of expert witness testimony, loss of work related income and the stress of a civil suit can bring a person down both financially and emotionally and this is assuming that you win.
That's fear-mongering B.S. I don't know how to say it any simpler.

You "could be" crucified for using a semi-auto, or for using JHP bullets, or for using a "defense" shotgun instead of a double. Point is, a sleazy lawyer can go after you for anything, justified or not.

-z
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 07:48 PM   #46
Johnc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 566
Quote:
That's fear-mongering B.S. I don't know how to say it any simpler.

You "could be" crucified for using a semi-auto, or for using JHP bullets, or for using a "defense" shotgun instead of a double. Point is, a sleazy lawyer can go after you for anything, justified or not.

So, if I understand you correctly, you have an unlimited financial resources at your disposal that you are willing to risk spending (read wasting) on defending yourself in court. You feel that the tactical use of a silencer far outweighs the legal ramifications. Additionally, you have decided that the potential loss of hearing from firing a shot in SD is so catastrophic that it outweighs conventional wisdom.

Yes a sleazy lawyer can conjure up a case based on nonsense, that is refereed to as a frivolous law suit. Many of those get thrown out before being heard. Others don't make it far. I am not representing that we should act as lambs. My recommendation is only to be cautious and not employ the use of questionable and unnecessary tactical devices that would act as food for a sleazy attorney.

If you want to see what type of financial impact a civil suit can have on a defendant, study the O J Simpson case. Remembering he was not found guilty criminally, now Fred Goldman owns him for life and beyond. That is from the subsequent civil suit. Right fully so.
Johnc is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 07:51 PM   #47
Lawyer Daggit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Posts: 1,181
There are other ways of protecting your hearing- don't reach for a shotgun or high power rifle in an indoor situation, use a handgun and load subsonic ammunition- I know with an semi auto this may give cycling issues- however you would need to experiment.

Before a court a smaller gun is going to look less threatening to Jurors than that all black semi auto laser sighted, surefire equipped Mal Ninja terminator with 30 round mags taped back to back that you are probably itching for an excuse to use.
Lawyer Daggit is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 07:56 PM   #48
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
Quote:
So, if I understand you correctly, you have an unlimited financial resources at your disposal that you are willing to risk spending (read wasting) on defending yourself in court. You feel that the tactical use of a silencer far outweighs the legal ramifications. Additionally, you have decided that the potential loss of hearing from firing a shot in SD is so catastrophic that it outweighs conventional wisdom.
Legal ramifications? You mean like using a legal item for legally and morally-sanctioned self defense? Nobody's been able to cite any law against using a legally-possessed silencer for self-defense, nor any court cases where the presence of a silencer made a difference in a self-defense case.

You can use the "bogey-man lawyer will string you up for it" argument against anything - just like you and others have done here - without any justification or rationale besides that you think the look scary-- and as a result it's not a valid argument against any of them.
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 08:15 PM   #49
Johnc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 566
Quote:
Legal ramifications? You mean like using a legal item for legally and morally-sanctioned self defense? Nobody's been able to cite any law against using a legally-possessed silencer for self-defense, nor any court cases where the presence of a silencer made a difference in a self-defense case.
No one needs to cite such a law. We are not speaking about a criminal case. We are speaking of a civil case. I am not aware of a case where anyone was irresponsible enough to use a silencer in SD.

Remember according to criminal law OJ Simpson was not found guilty. Civilly he lost it all. Do you honestly think that any reputable defense attorney with firearms experience is going to condone the use of a silencer for SD? Ask him if he will match you dollar for dollar in your civil case defense fund. Then ask him if he will do the same for any monetary award the court may instruct you to pay. I bet not.
Johnc is offline  
Old April 8, 2008, 08:24 PM   #50
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Do you honestly think that any reputable defense attorney with firearms experience is going to condone the use of a silencer for SD? Ask him if he will match you dollar for dollar in your civil case defense fund. Then ask him if he will do the same for any monetary award the court may instruct you to pay. I bet not.
I'd wager that you couldn't find one who would back you in this manner if you use a cap and ball revolver, let alone a supressor.
Don H 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 09:59 PM.


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 0.13225 seconds with 7 queries