Suppressor for home defence

[Jermtheory]

You can't be under imminent bodily harm if the assailant doesn't know you are there.

if an armed man breaks into my house and is making his way toward me and my family?

i consider that an imminent threat.

[JB Books]

"Castle doctrine," "stand your ground," "make my day" great concepts.

This thread is getting tired. I certainly am not an expert on either filing civil suit against or defending folks who shoot one another.

However, based on years of experience and a little success as a plaintiffs' lawyer, I will tell you that I believe that if you use a suppressed pistol to shoot someone, you will have some problems under any, but the most exceptional, scenario.

I'm not familiar with Harry Beckwith or his justified shootings. I can say that it is not unreasonable that a Class 3 dealer or manufacturer would employ a Class 3 weapon in his own defense. By the nature of their business, they are targets for people who want to steal their weapons usually for the explicit purpose of using them to kill or selling them to folks who will use them to kill. As opposed to to your local meth head who wants to steal guns to score some quick cash.

Still, I would not use my submachine gun in self defense unless it was my only option.

The rest of you can, and have fun. Being sued is a royal pain, even for someone who knows the game.

[Socrates]

IIRC, Louisiana is the same.

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

Interesting topic, surprised it went on this long.

I was a little surprised to see one of THE SD Gurus say that there are no documented case of an individual using a suppressor in a SD situation (if I read right).

It looks like we have two basic camps.

One side says we don't need to do anything beyond "normal", which I guess is a factory gun with standard SD rounds, to avoid persecution from the prosecution.

The other says I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

That is assuming, of course, that it is legal to own a suppressor in your state and that yours is legally owned.

IF I had one (and I'm starting to seriously consider getting one) it could very well find it's way onto the end of my carry weapon at night. I say that for all the PRO's mentioned here, namely less ringing in your ears to hopefully keep you a little more aware of what's going on around you. Anything that helps me get through the scenario alive and intact is welcome, again assuming that it is legal.

These are the strikes I already have "against" me if a prosecutor wanted to make an example of me:

1. I own several handguns in different calibers, not to mention an evil black rifle
2. I keep premium SD hollow points in all of my handguns that I carry (locked in safe of course)
3. I am a CHL holder
4. I shoot IDPA (classified as Marksman in two divisions, still striving for all five) and IPSC
5. I am a reloader
6. I spend time on this forum and am trying to start one up for my shooting club
7. I go to the range at least three times a week, shoot at least 150 rounds per session
8. By the end of next month I will have three self defense/training courses under my belt

While I have no doubt that an overzealous lawyer, DA, or grand jury would tack on a few more negative points for the use of a Class III item for self defense that is a risk I'm willing to take if it increases my changes of my loved ones and I continuing to breathe. I'd rather be crying in a jail cell than at a funeral or in the ground myself. That being said I do not believe a suppressor is a mandatory SD item...but if I had one I would use it just like any other tools I have around my home.

If Mr. Ayood reads this post maybe he could share a link to an organization that has been formed to offer legal advice and guidance to CHL holders involved in a shooting. I cannot remember the details but I seem to recall that he is on the advisory board for this organization, as well as Tom Givens from Rangemaster and several others with very good names in the shooting world. I plan on joining that organization as soon as I can do some more research on it to see what all the benefits will amount to.

[Socrates]

However, based on years of experience and a little success as a plaintiffs' lawyer, I will tell you that I believe that if you use a suppressed pistol to shoot someone, you will have some problems under any, but the most exceptional, scenario.

What state are you in, and what's your bar number? Do you have a CCW? Why do you think your practicing civil law would have any bearing on a specific issue, not yet litigated, which you failed to state correctly:
a justified shooting of a home invader, by someone with legal ownership of a suppressor, on a semi-automatic pistol? You didn't even get the issue right, why should we listen to your opinion on it?

One thing about the 'practice of law', is you generally should know something about the area under discussion, and some of the cases that deal with it, before shooting, or commenting.

I will say this one more time: this particular issue is based on each states statutes, and precedent. Provided the issue does not arise in a situation where the narrow Federal statute concerning suppressors kicks in, Drugs and guns,
it is totally state dependent. If you have a case cite from your state, on point, feel free to post some REAL information...

The Alaska article provided above indicates that in Kali, it's never gone to trial, at least not a published opinion, findable within Lexis limitations.

My guess is that the same is true in Alaska, and, I suspect in Alaska suppressors are legal.

We have one case where a Class 3 was justified, but, had to go to grand jury, where it was kicked.

Any ACTUAL state information would be helpful in the discussion.

By the way, all your logic about how to attack a firearms person that uses a gun in home defense is useless if barred by state statute...

[Socrates]

Sigma40Blaster:

I was a little surprised to see one of THE SD Gurus say that there are no documented case of an individual using a suppressor in a SD situation (if I read right).

What came out of the above article is that no published opinion, in appellate, Supreme Court, or Alaska or Kali law exists on said subject.

Mas does have knowledge, as do some of us, of the really horrible cases that have gone to trial, and should not have.
Ignorant DA's are REALLY scary, and, there are a few around, that don't bother to uphold the Constitution, or even their own states laws, see Louisiana for the gun holdings by N.O. Police and DA.

In Texas, I would find an attorney, or someone willing to do research on suppressors used in shootings. The details of your CCW, where you would carry it, why, and how you might employee it, are huge, and, considerably different from a home attack. Going out the door really changes the rules.

[Socrates]

Here's what I found in a quick search:

§ 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures,
transports, repairs, or sells:
(1) an explosive weapon;
(2) a machine gun;
(3) a short-barrel firearm;
(4) a firearm silencer[0];
(5) a switchblade knife;
(6) knuckles;
(7) armor-piercing ammunition;
(8) a chemical dispensing device; or
(9) a zip gun.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor's conduct was incidental to the performance of official
duty by the armed forces or national guard, a governmental law
enforcement agency, or a correctional facility.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor's possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the
National Firearms Act, as amended.
(d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the actor's conduct:
(1) was incidental to dealing with a switchblade
knife, springblade knife, or short-barrel firearm solely as an
antique or curio; or
(2) was incidental to dealing with armor-piercing
ammunition solely for the purpose of making the ammunition
available to an organization, agency, or institution listed in
Subsection (b).
(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree unless it is committed under Subsection (a)(5) or (a)(6), in
which event, it is a Class A misdemeanor.
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section for
the possession of a chemical dispensing device that the actor is a
security officer and has received training on the use of the
chemical dispensing device by a training program that is:
(1) provided by the Commission on Law Enforcement
Officer Standards and Education; or
(2) approved for the purposes described by this
subsection by the Texas Private Security Board of the Department of
Public Safety.
(g) In Subsection (f), "security officer" means a
commissioned security officer as defined by Section 1702.002,
Occupations Code, or a noncommissioned security officer registered
under Section 1702.221, Occupations Code.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 918, ch. 342, § 15, eff.
Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 2650, ch. 457, § 2, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4831, ch. 852, § 2, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 167, § 5.01(a)(47),
eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 229, § 2, eff.
Sept. 1, 1991; Renumbered from Penal Code § 46.06 and amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts
2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1071, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1035, § 2.01, eff. September 1,
2005.
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1278, § 7, eff. September 1,
2005.

The only
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/
cases I could find were murder and drugs...

[Wildalaska]

The first rule of criminal law...the more you need to explain something, the worse off you are.

WildjudgeaccordinglyAlaska ™

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

In Texas, I would find an attorney, or someone willing to do research on suppressors used in shootings. The details of your CCW, where you would carry it, why, and how you might employee it, are huge, and, considerably different from a home attack. Going out the door really changes the rules.

I wouldn't consider CCW'ing something with a suppressor, if for no other reason than practicality. If I were to get one I would definitely research the laws, much as I have done with my CHL.

My main point was that you can't let fear or paranoia of what MIGHT happen stop you from taking perfectly legal action...if it is indeed legal. I do hear what Mas, you, and a lot of others are saying about not wanting to be the test case.

I guess the only thing you can do is know the law, be aware of the potential consequences, and act accordingly after weighing the law and unknowns into consideration.

Also. I honestly don't know what to make of that section of the Texas penal code (if that is what that is...not much time to verify right now). I do know that we have one or two Class III dealers in town, and we are having a Class III shoot coming up in a few weekends at my shooting club. So I can only assume that machine guns, silencers, and sawed off shotguns are legal here IF you have your collector's stamp. That being said, I have never seen anything prohibiting the use of legally owned firearms from self defense shootings...but that's where I'd get a lawyer or two, some cops, and maybe even just email the ATF to find out for sure.

[JB Books]

First, I have answered that I am in the Southwest. Secondly, since I am not filing a pleading, I am not inclined to give my name and bar number to you. Frankly, you can believe I am an attorney or not, I don't care. You are coming off as a weirdo.

I offered my OPINION as to why I wouldn't use a suppressed pistol for home defense. I think I have been careful to qualify it as my OPINION. You can use a GE 20mm chain gun for all I care. I thought the purpose of these forums was to have DISCUSSION on issues, meaning we might agree or disagree.

As far as your comment about "the practice of law" and knowing a little something, let me give you a nice arrogant response. I know I probably pay more in quarterly taxes than most people make in two years. I know I have an S 550 and Range Rover sitting in my garage that are paid for, as is the garage. I know that my 30+ employees in two cities and the 2100+ clients we represent per year probably figure I am doing something right. I know that I am very happy that Judge Bartle signed an order distributing fen phen settlements yesterday at 12:32 pm Eastern time.

And finally, my man, I know what you can do with your supressed pistol and your whacko attitude.....

Also, copying and pasting statutes and articles from Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw doesn't qualify as legal research.

[Socrates]

I'm just wondering why if you know nothing about the area under discussion, you think you have something to add to the discussion?

It's too bad, because with your vast resources, I'm sure someone in your office in 30 minutes on line could come up with something that would a very valuable addition to this discussion.

The topic raised was pretty specific.

I've taught classes in law school, and, I would expect more discussion quality from a first year.

I'm just very skeptical when we get folks claiming to be attorneys, who are inconsistent with my experience with law school and the legal profession. Your last post doesn't do much, except confirm that.

[JB Books]

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............

That was the original post. I told him what I thought. I still think it. Wild Alaska said it best, the more you have to explain, the worse off you are.

I don't have to have an LLM in Taxation to know that it's probably not the best idea to mix business and personal expenses, even if you keep good records. I don't have to be a guru in Professional Responsibility to know that withdrawing my rightfully earned fees in cash from my Client Trust Account looks shady. Get it yet? Why invite problems?

Really, give it a rest. You have your opinion and I have mine. You remind me of a disbarred lawyer who did some contract work for me. If he thought he was right, he'd never let anything go, no matter what the price. Pyrrhic victories kinda suck. BTW, he was from California too. Is there something in the water out there?

And as for your little jab, I'll just keep my "vast resources" on continuing to work to line my pockets, and not send them off on a wild goose chase to satisfy your intellectual curiosity. Now stop needling me, the rest of the board will get jealous. It would be selfish of me to hog all of your attention.

[Socrates]

Wow. A reasoned, somewhat logical response. What got into you?

We always did say the C students made the most money...

[JB Books]

C+ if you must know

[Socrates]

That explains it...

At least you like law. My girlfriend, ex-law professor can't stand it. She just doesn't have the fortitude to stick with it, and follow through. In all fairness, she started in family law, which is enough to make you think humans should either stop the institution, or realize it's nothing but a cash cow for the church...

That said, I do take this issue seriously, having been around suppressors for awhile, and enjoying shooting in my basement...Wish you had a bit more solid information about case law in your state.

Any idea when the class action for Vioxx/Celebrex is likely to be final?

Thanks

S J.D.

PS
I gave Mas a really hard time at first, since you can't be too careful, if you know what I mean...

[Mas Ayoob]

SIGMA 40 Blaster:

To answer your question, it's the Armed Citizens' Network, www.armedcitizensnetwork.com. I know the folks in charge and know them to be competent, and that's why I'm on board with it myself.

I've seen a lot of people go through this sort of trial, and it's not something you want to experience without some folks on your side.

best,
Mas

[Conceal Carry]

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?

Germtheory I agree with you 100%.

In an SD/HD situation Ill focus only on the job on hand, for me only success or failure matters not the consequences.

[Lon308]

Fair or not, a big influence in whether a District Attorney will charge an incident is HOW IT LOOKS. If you shoot someone with a suppressed weapon, there is a good chance that the D/A will consider you as stalking the intruder with no thought of dissuading him - only killing him.

If the D/A issues charges, now you can have the same problem with a judge and jury. More cases are being decided on feelings and less on facts.

In fact, you're probably going to be scrutinized less if you use a lever-action 30-30 or a 4-inch .38 Special than if you use an AR-15 or a Desert Eagle or a M-11 (although none is, technically, any worse than the other).

My opinion is that the risk of increased legal fees outweighs any perceived benefits of using something that can be considered as a "offensive" vs a "defensive" firearm. Remember, that people get their opinions from movies, and movies show suppressors to be only used by the Mafia and assassins.

Back when no warrant was needed to use a thermal imaging device to attempt to detect the heat signature for an indoor drug grow, a senior Assistant District Attorney didn't want us to use one, because he saw the movie "Blue Thunder" and thought that we could see through walls into peoples bedrooms (NOT).

I still remember the judge passing sentence on an offender who used a Mac-11 in his crimes. It was a female judge, and she started her pronouncement with, "Mister Ortiz. You used a really-big gun in this incident, so I'm going to give you a really-big sentence."

Not worth the risk.

[Johnc]

My opinion is that the risk of increased legal fees outweighs any perceived benefits of using something that can be considered as a "offensive" vs a "defensive" firearm. Remember, that people get their opinions from movies, and movies show suppressors to be only used by the Mafia and assassins.

LON308 Welcome to TFL. I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, there will be those soon that will not. These are people that obviously have unlimited funds with which they can hire dream team defense attorneys and afford to gift away money that will inevitably be awarded away from them in subsequent civil cases. Prepare for the flames. For soon they will rise.

John

[Socrates]

Money changes everything. If you have the money to hire the best lawyers, and, your home is invaded, and, you did everything right, chances are pretty good you aren't going to be indicted. If your case has facts that make the DA taking it to trial either a publicity stunt for him, or, if the facts are in anyway questionable, you better have money.

So, the real question here is: How much is your hearing worth? 10k? 25k, or 250k? Million?
Second would be what are the chances of having to use the silenced gun?

The disturbing part is the people who are good people, but are forced to live in bad areas, for financial reasons, are the ones that need such stuff the most.

Also, our legal system attacks the low income. If the facts are bad, the case will likely be pled, because the defendant doesn't have the money to hire a decent attorney.

If the client is rich, the DA usually won't want to go to trial and get embarassed, unless his case is a slam dunk. On the other hand, we have DA's now that start to think any publicity is better then none, and proceed on cases they shouldn't.

You have issues: One is what is the likelyhood and type of threat you might face, and, what weapon would best serve you in that situation?
Second would be what weapon would be most likely to be viewed favorably in court, and, this is determined by the area you live in, and, your neighbors, and who they voted for for DA.
Third is what profession are you in? I know that my friend, former SWAT/Police Union leader/Col. National Guard would be MUCH less likely to have to explain much on a shooting, compared to someone from Richmond, who had a gang break into his house.

I'm sure others can add more issues, but, your answer to the original poster's question is going to be determined by the answers to the questions posed prior, and, yes, what it looks like is going to be part of it.

Fair or not, a big influence in whether a District Attorney will charge an incident is HOW IT LOOKS. If you shoot someone with a suppressed weapon, there is a good chance that the D/A will consider you as stalking the intruder with no thought of dissuading him - only killing him.

I like to think most of the DA's I know wouldn't make this jump in illogic, but, you never know.

If the D/A issues charges, now you can have the same problem with a judge and jury. More cases are being decided on feelings and less on facts.

Bad case law starts with bad facts. It's the case with the really terrible fact pattern that usually ends up with a horrible judgment, and result. In other words, the cases with bad facts make people come up with verdicts that are outside the law, and sentences that are, as well. I guess I would agree that such stuff is emotion driven. Usually some case stretches our legal limits, and, we end up with legislators writing bad laws to look good to their constituents, and we end up with stuff like 'hate crime' legislation, which really has no practical value, but, it looks good...

What is particularly disturbing is when you read Justice William O. Douglas, Supreme court justice for 35 years or so, and, he states that the justices often have a preformed feeling or opinion on an issue, and, they just try and find a legal logic that will justify their own feelings.

I still remember the judge passing sentence on an offender who used a Mac-11 in his crimes. It was a female judge, and she started her pronouncement with, "Mister Ortiz. You used a really-big gun in this incident, so I'm going to give you a really-big sentence."

Not worth the risk.

This was a criminal case, and, with a multiple offender, the judge's position might actually have legal basis, such as Kali's three strikes law, rather then just the gun being the basis for the sentence. Maybe not.

I'm kind of wondering where this leaves us. I ideally, at least for Mas, I should be using a Sig P220, with 230 grain Hydrashocks, or a pump shotgun, since both are standard issue to our local police. Sig I don't own, I have a 1911 setup for 45 Super, but, it would take a weapons expert to know that, and, it will shoot 45 hydrashocks, so I could go there.

Shotgun to me, would be easily attacked. No place to shoot the gun, it would be used only for defense, and, I wouldn't be able to practice with it, and, I'd be deaf for the rest of my life after.

Shotguns are harder to open doors with, etc. So, I'm back to wanting a handgun that hits like a rifle, but can be used with one hand, to open doors, negotiate close quarters, etc.

To be honest, all other issues aside, the M11/10 45 acp macs, or even the 9mm or 380 versions, were designed for sweeping rooms, close quarter combat, and, for the amount of money they cost, would be perfect for home defense, if none of the other factors are discussed, and, the suppressor would help, since you'd still be able to hear. Uzi's, and sub, or, even the assault rifles would be good, close quarters combat weapons.

So, I see a balancing scale with what was designed for such protective duties, and, what we are forced by political correctness and fear you use instead. I guess what side of the balancing scale you pick is determined by your money, your area, and your beliefs...

[Socrates]

Darn. I just thought of a REALLY good reason not to use a suppressor, or machine gun, for home defense. Both are governed by FEDERAL LAW. The Supremacy clause, in short, states that when you have two laws on the same legal issue, the Federal Law trumps.

Now, for example, we had a REALLY bad boy from Texas. He wasn't yet 20, but, his rap sheet had twice as many pages as his age. His idea of fun was to hold some innocent woman at gun point outside a window tinting shop for a 1/2 hour, ditch the gun, and almost get away with it. He came to court on another charge, was arrested outside the courthouse, and turned over to the federalies.

His gun charges were federal crimes, interstate and all that, and, they had jurisdiction. Couple ways to go on this.

You can try em in local court, applying federal law. Nobody wants to do this, since it's way too much work. You can waive jurisdiction, and let the Federal system take them. Or, the federal guys come in, and tell you they want to take him, and do you want a battle over jurisdiction?

From a prosecutors position, this is a dream. You've got a choice of courts to pick from to try the guy, and, you put him in the one where he's most likely to get convicted, and maximum sentence. You can also pick the law that has the maximum sentence to try him in, if the issue of jurisdiction is not clear.

From a defendants' position, it is a true nightmare. You have both the federal and state governments with jurisidiction, and, they can hand pick the venue that most likely works to their advantage to convict you. Defense costs are huge in federal court.

The city this happened is the criminal haven of the United States. It has a 48% conviction rate on jury trials. My guess is if you went to trial in Federal court, your chances just doubled, or more, to be convicted.

Plea bargains in Federal court are more like, take this, or get the max. City negotiations actually imply some sort of bargaining, and fair play. Appeals in Federal convictions are also much more brutal. Look at the above case I posted parts of where the guy appealed his two month silencer conviction in federal court. The appeals court, I'm sure feeling that this guy totally insulted them, and, looked a gift horse in the mouth, sent it back, telling the lower court they didn't have the right to sentence him to anything except the 2 year statute minimum. So, his appeal got him another 22 months in jail.

So, this kid went into city court, on a minor charge, came out, and found himself on his way to Federal prison. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy, but, how would you like it to be you?

Keep in mind that even if your state has a stamp that pays the federal tax on suppressors, the law governing that item is federal. I will NEVER be in the spot where I have a chance of getting caught up in Federal court, if I don't have to...

Forget the suppressor.

[SilentHitz]

Besides the legal problems, that are a big consideration, I see no need for a home defense weapon to be suppressed. Chances are few shots will be fired, and the ear ringing will not last long...not as long as the trial or prison sentence.

[Slopemeno]

I've fired a .45 acp and a 12 gauge indoors, with no hearing protection. I'll take the 12 gauge any day.