The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 9, 2008, 02:16 AM   #76
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
Hi
Tried to look up the cites on that law review article, but, not only are they not Blue Book, they are flat out weird. Never heard of writing an article with "Lexis" cites...

Quote:
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.

I like this quote from Mas. You are, most of the time, betting your life savings on the local DA's knowledge of weapons, the law, and there use. While those of us who are familiar with silencers, muzzle brakes, and machine guns maybe very comfortable with their position, and use as a SD firearm, are you sure your DA, and police chief are? Most of the DA's I've known are highly honorable people, who understand their duty to properly use the huge power of their office. And then there are the DA's like the guy who filed charges against the guys from Duke on the rape case, who, most of the time, don't get disbarred, and sued, and, they should be.

Keep in mind that most DA's offices at least have a prebooking routine that allows a senior attorney to decide if the case justifies filing, and, then, usually a senior, experienced attorney is assigned to something like a murder case.

On the otherhand, one often wonders if sometimes Kimberly Gilfoil was assigned the dog case because she was pretty, and having sex with the mayor, Gavin Newsome, plus, she looks REALLY good on the screen...

My point is, if these folks aren't experts on firearms, what about the jury pool?

Answer: Move to a place that has the majority that are VERY conservative, and, are familiar with firearms.
Socrates is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 02:45 AM   #77
Lawyer Daggit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Posts: 1,181
Socrates, you raise a good point. Most of us have other needs than firearms ownership that lead to our geographical location.

Besides, if we all moved to the US west the place would be shot out in no time....
Lawyer Daggit is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 07:06 AM   #78
Alleykat
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 3,668
Whatever the reasons for seeing more of Kimberly Gilfoil, I'm for them!
Alleykat is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 08:25 AM   #79
Johnc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 566
Quote:
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.
It amazes me so. A thread starts, verbal debate ensues, the experts weigh in to curtail, instruct and educate us and the foolish dialog continues.

My advise is to take the hearing protection off while trolling the forums. LISTEN to what these wise men are telling you. They are experts. It is what they do all day. IF, GOD forbid you do have to use a questionable weapon or tactic like the ones we are discussing in SD, you are condemning yourself to a life of poverty if only a foolish attorney is after your money. A wise one (such as the expert TFL members advising us) with the help of expert testimony will destroy you and your family financially for decades to come.

A post such as this is exactly the type of dialog an attorney will drool over during your trial.

Save your money for court. You will need it.
Johnc is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 10:35 AM   #80
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
Quote:
It is what they do all day. IF, GOD forbid you do have to use a questionable weapon or tactic like the ones we are discussing in SD, you are condemning yourself to a life of poverty if only a foolish attorney is after your money. A wise one (such as the expert TFL members advising us) with the help of expert testimony will destroy you and your family financially for decades to come.
Let's make a list of things to avoid, which could be used against you in civil court and/or with a "bad" DA (provided it was a justified shoot):

* Holsters because they mean you are a wanna-be gunslinger
* 45ACP / 44 / 347 Magnum because they are too powerful
* Any modern autopistol because they are made "for killing people"
* Night sights because they mean you are intend to shoot people at night
* Active earpro next to your "bedside" gun because it means you are itching to shoot an intruder
* Never train or take any self-defense classes because it means you want to shoot someone
* Not belong to a shooting range
* Not read any gun-related books or magazines
* Not be politically active for the RKBA
* Not have the Heller oral arguments on your iPod because it means you want "machine guns"
* Heaven forbid being involved in one way or another professionally in the firearm business
* Never watch any old westerns

According to the lawyer's post, it sounds like all those things are questionable. Following that logic, it's best to be a complete incompetent, with a .22LR squirrel rifle inherited from your grand-pa, that your intruder happened to trip over!

It rhetoric at that level were actually true, then you'd never see a person with any preparation whatsoever get through the aftermath of a self-defense shooting.
__________________
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 9, 2008, 10:53 AM   #81
Conceal Carry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 164
Wow....interesting thoughts... OK let's say that I don't own a suppressor legally or otherwise....suppose I use some thoer method to muffle the sound like an empoty bottle on the barrel or a pillow just to protect my hearing....or if some one in the house is a heart patient whose life may be at risk due to a sudden blast in the middle of the night .... i am just assuming different scenarios.... would it still be considered an offence?
Conceal Carry is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 10:59 AM   #82
Johnc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 566
Quote:
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.
No one is representing the intention to go into a SD situation willfully unprepared. That point made, have you ever heard the expression "never bring a handgun to a gun fight"? Among my modest collection is an AR-15. I have no intention of using this as a SD weapon because of the aura surrounding black guns and the AR in the name meaning ASSAULT RIFLE in court. Further, I have many handguns including a Glock 23 with an internal laser that I would not use as home SD weapons. The laser itself may pose a legal issue.That in addition to the before mentioned expression excludes it from being my weapon of choice for home SD. Instead I would turn my attention to a pump shotgun with an appropriate load.

Everyone that posts or lurks on TFL has a wealth of information at their disposal from which we can learn. Myself included. To sit here with your hands covering your eyes while attempting to view the wisdom of experts such as the ones that have posted on this thread is foolish at best.

On this issue Zak, respectfully, we will have to agree to disagree.
Johnc is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 11:03 AM   #83
Johnc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 566
Quote:
Wow....interesting thoughts... OK let's say that I don't own a suppressor legally or otherwise....suppose I use some thoer method to muffle the sound like an empoty bottle on the barrel or a pillow just to protect my hearing....or if some one in the house is a heart patient whose life may be at risk due to a sudden blast in the middle of the night .... i am just assuming different scenarios.... would it still be considered an offence?
You can not obtain a stamp to make a pillow or an empty plastic bottle into a legal suppressor. Therefore I could only imagine that it would hurt your case even further. Also, don't count on an empty bottle as much of a sound suppressor. It is what it is, an empty bottle destined for recycling.
Johnc is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 11:12 AM   #84
w_houle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 29, 2007
Location: Junction City, KS
Posts: 1,389
Sorry, I caught this late, and yes I didn't read it it all but damn... L&P much anyone? Anyway, I would rather not use a silencer if given the ability to, there just seems to be a few things my 1911 can say better than me
__________________
How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished?
w_houle is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 11:21 AM   #85
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
Quote:
To sit here with your hands covering your eyes while attempting to view the wisdom of experts such as the ones that have posted on this thread is foolish at best. On this issue Zak, respectfully, we will have to agree to disagree.
Like I said in my prior post, if we optimize for lowest legal exposure - what conceivably possibly could happen - then the best position to be in is a totally untrained and unprepared rube using a dull stick who survives being a victim on chance alone. As the lawyer has pointed out, the tools that enable survival once selected as a victim - mental preparation, mindset, contemplation, training, and the actual defense tools themselves - will be used against her in court later. If that's the case, he'll be going after all those things and a silencer, if used, would be a drop in the bucket.
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.

Last edited by Zak Smith; April 9, 2008 at 01:56 PM. Reason: grammar
Zak Smith is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 12:05 PM   #86
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
John and Zak:
I think you are both right, and sadly our government wrong.
I think Zak lives in a place where he is right, that the law would be followed, as it's written, with regard only for the exact legal issues. I think Alaska would probably be more of the same.

JohnC: You and I live in places that have preverted liberty, and attacked the second amendment. This is the truly sad part of these debates.

I shoot because I enjoy accurate weapons. For that reason, I want an M1A before they ban them in our state, as they have all other assault rifles, pretty much.

I also would like to have a double barreled Nitro Express, for hunting. I see no reason these aren't suitable for home defense, since that's all I've got, or, my .475 Linebaugh, since that's as close as I can get to a rifle, in something I can take to the door. My friends use heavy rifles, starting at 375 H&H, for home defense, since in their areas they have things like moose at the front door, and brown and black bear when taking out the trash.

Funny, but if I was a full time attorney, I'd find it pretty easy to go after someone with a SWAT type shotgun, since, at least in our area, you can't shoot them at the range, unless they have a slug barrel, and slugs.

My hope: an earthquake so Nevada becomes coastal property...

Last edited by Socrates; April 9, 2008 at 03:49 PM.
Socrates is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 12:06 PM   #87
ChicagoTex
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2008
Location: DFW Metroplex
Posts: 1,909
JohnKSA,

I've spoken with three certified Texas CHL Instructors on the subject and they all agree that a grand jury's "no-bill" satisfies the justification requirement.

I am far less confident that an acquittal at trial satisfies the justification requirement but I haven't asked about that.
ChicagoTex is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 01:04 PM   #88
Jermtheory
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 20, 2007
Posts: 1,283
im utterly amazed at the number of people who would use any other criteria for defending their and their families lives...than whats the best tool for the job.

i dont buy/own/posses any illegal weapons,but aside from that i'll use the most effective tools possible to protect me and mine.if i have another fight down the road because of it,than thats another battle which is in every way secondary(to making it through the first).

a suppressor offers many advantages other than hearing protection btw.it can mask your position(noise),reduce/eliminate recoil and flash...which can also mask your position and protect your night vision,while making for more accurate follow up shots.

...these things can easily make all the difference in the world in a SD/HD situation.

if im ever forced into defending myself/family and afterwards my biggest concern is a possible court battle...im a winner already.

theres no weapon that willl guarantee you wont be sued or prosecuted...so why not give yourself the best chance,to even be able to worry about such things?
Jermtheory is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 01:55 PM   #89
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
I believe there was a Florida gun dealer (who passed away last year?) who has used both machine guns and supressors in dealing with robbers/burglars at his business and these confrontations ended in injury and/or death is several instances. I don't recall that he was ever prosecuted as a result of these incidents. Does anyone have more information about this person that may be relevant to this discussion?
Don H is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 02:30 PM   #90
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
I think the quickest way of viewing this is look at your neighbors. How would they react, as jury members, if you used a suppressor, or any kind of weapon, in defending your home?

In my area we run the gamut of liberal-facist to pro-gun conservaties. It's a gamble...
Socrates is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 02:50 PM   #91
Mas Ayoob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Posts: 239
Don H:

That was Harry Beckwith, God rest his soul. Used a full auto M16 and a Smith & Wesson M76 9mm SMG. Still had to go in front of the grand jury, though, even though it lay within the power of the State's Attorney not to bother. Fortunately, those good citizens of Alachua County knew a clean shoot when they saw one and let it go. Not something any of us can count on.

Cordially,
Mas
Mas Ayoob is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 04:01 PM   #92
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
Hi Mas, and other legal eagles:

Would you be kind enough to glance through this 'law review'
article, and see if you recognize any of the cases, and, if so, which ones would be worth researching?

http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf

I've tried to find the U.S. vs. Webb case, but the cite is not blue book form, and, I can't find it on www.findlaw.com. The cases that it might appear to be make no mention of a silencer at all, just a federal mandated penalty for large amounts of crack cocaine...

It would certainly be nice if someone actually had a list of case cites on silencers used in home defense...
Thanks

Socrates

P.S. I have found this case on the issue of silencers and drug related crimes:

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/....94-30104.html

It appears to be really clear that the courts are trying to narrow the entire issue to actual, proved use of a silencer on a gun, in connection with drug selling, at least from this opinion.

I found http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...us_v_stump.txt

This is an excellent example of what can happen when you waste a UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT time with a frivilous appeal:

Or, how to turn your 2 month sentence into 2-3 years with a stupid appeal:
Quote:
William Darrell Stump, II, admitted at trial that he fired
rifles equipped with homemade silencers on property owned by his
father in May 1994. Stump was convicted by a jury of two counts of
possessing illegal silencers, 26 U.S.C. sections 5861(d), (i)
(1994). The imprisonment range under the Sentencing Guidelines
[footnote *] was calculated to be twenty-seven to thirty-three
months. The district court sentenced Stump to two months
imprisonment. Stump filed a timely appeal challenging the
constitutionality of his convictions (No. 96-4279), and the
Government filed a timely cross-appeal challenging the district
court's downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines (No.
96-4283).

Stump argues that his convictions were unconstitutional
because the Constitution does not provide for the existence of
federal courts (other than the Supreme Court) or federal law
enforcement agencies. This argument is without merit, and Stump's
convictions are hereby affirmed.

We find, however, that the district court erred in departing
downward from the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court based
its ruling on evidence which showed that Stump fired the silenced
rifles for a sporting purpose (i.e., target practice) and
only"possessed" the silencers for a brief amount of time. The
district court ruled that the Sentencing Commission could not have
foreseen such a"bare-boned" violation of the law. We disagree... Accordingly, we affirm Stump's convictions (No. 96-4279), but
we vacate the sentence and remand the case for a new sentencing
hearing in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines (No. 96-4283).
Found a page with court cases on firearms that's very helpful:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...ses_short.html
Socrates is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 04:28 PM   #93
Mas Ayoob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Posts: 239
Soc, that was an interesting read. I don't claim to be any sort of legal eagle. However, we're still where none of us know of a case where a lawfully owned and registered suppressor was used in a self-defense shooting.

Therefore, whomever does so first gets to be the test case.

Dunno 'bout y'all, but my mama didn't raise me to be a test case...
Mas Ayoob is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 05:01 PM   #94
Johnc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 566
Quote:
Dunno 'bout y'all, but my mama didn't raise me to be a test case...
No Sir, neither your Mother nor mine raised any crash test dummies.
Johnc is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 05:13 PM   #95
Johnc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 566
Quote:
I think you are both right, and sadly our government wrong.

Socrates, thanks for your input on this. I am not sure the OP knew the direction or duration that this thread would achieve.

I think that the problem goes beyond the government. Unless you would consider that the government brainwashed civilians into believing that all black guns are evil and silencers are inherently evil also. When you sit as the accused, you are ultimately judged by a jury of your peers, those being civilians. Those civilians, unless you would consider them to be unduly influenced by the government are still civilians. So, I would have to agree with you and add that we as a society are part of the problem. Only the we part that thinks certain firearms (or parts thereof) are evil.

Mas Ayoob, thanks again for your opinion on this matter.

John
Johnc is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 05:21 PM   #96
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
Quote:
Soc, that was an interesting read. I don't claim to be any sort of legal eagle. However, we're still where none of us know of a case where a lawfully owned and registered suppressor was used in a self-defense shooting.

Therefore, whomever does so first gets to be the test case.

Dunno 'bout y'all, but my mama didn't raise me to be a test case...
I suspect, judging from the % of cases criminal, in Kali, that go to trial, 3%, that if the situation ever came up, it would be plea bargained out to something minimal.

But, you never know. Since I'm already going a bit deaf, I would certainly consider having one around the house for target shooting if I could legally own one. I'd love to have a suppressor on a high powered rifle, and muzzle brake, at the same time.

Anyone have any information on how easy it is to get a Class III license now?

Mas, while you are around:
Do you have any actual chrono testing on 9mm out of a short barrel, like a Rohrburg?
I've noticed a BIG difference in ballistics, with some 9mm ammunition, when going from a 3.5"
barrel to a 3". Wondering if like the .357, there is a point where all you get is recoil, with reduced ballistics?

Thanks

Socrates
PS
One thing we CAN agree on is the mention of a silencer creates sheer terror in the hearts of legislators, and, certain federal judges. One must wonder what those legislators and judges have done that would create such an unreasoning fear of an inanimate object?
I gather this by the absurd laws written governing the issue, with no basis in fact, starting in 1934, and, after wading through a bunch of those cases, some of the comments by the sitting appellate judges...Usually such fear is reserved for the Mugabe's of this world, and, they have good reason to fear...
Socrates is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 05:44 PM   #97
Mas Ayoob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Posts: 239
None handy, Soc. I'm on the road, will check when I get back home.
Mas Ayoob is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 05:56 PM   #98
Willie D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,116
The only excuse to use a suppressor would be for hearing reasons.

You still need to be under imminent bodily harm before you apply lethal force. The original post states that a suppressor might be useful so as to not alert multiple intruders. You can't be under imminent bodily harm if the assailant doesn't know you are there. Even in states that also allow defense of property, I don't believe you can shoot someone without a warning.

Maybe you can use your family members as bait and then strike? :barf:
Willie D is offline  
Old April 9, 2008, 06:02 PM   #99
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
Quote:
I don't believe you can shoot someone without a warning.
Do we need to go through this again? Cite.
__________________
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 9, 2008, 06:05 PM   #100
Bill DeShivs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2006
Posts: 7,205
Tenn. state law says you can use deadly force if someone forcibly enters your domecile. No warnings.
__________________
Bill DeShivs
www.billdeshivs.com
Bill DeShivs 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 11:54 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 0.13747 seconds with 7 queries