Does Using an NFA Item in a Personal Defense Situation Put You in More Legal Jeopardy?

[Paladin]

Something to consider:

Does Using an NFA Item in a Personal Defense Situation Put You in More Legal Jeopardy?

[parabelum]

What if you just use suppressor as a club in self defense

[LSUTiger]

I am not a lawyer and do not interpret anything I say as legal advice.

I think there are three questions that arise when and NFA device is used in a Self Defense situation:

1. Were you legally justified in Self Defense? In another words same rules apply as any other situation/non-NFA device.
2. Were you in legal possession of the NFA device?
3. Mitigating or Aggravation circumstances.

Of course the prosecution, if it goes to trial, will try to use it or anything against you to make you look bad but I don't think legally there is anything about NFA items that prohibits you from using them in Self Defense.

You also risk the loss of the item as any other.

Someone, anyone, please correct me if I am wrong.

[Paladin]

Criminal Use of Firearm Silencers

In federal prosecutions, a defendant can be charged with possession of a silencer during a crime, which carries a 30-year sentence, and if the silencer is homemade and not licenced or serial numbered, persons convicted of these offenses can receive up to 10 years as well (U. S. v. Frazier, 213 F.3d 409 (7th Cir. 2000)).

[srothstein]

I think it depends on the NFA device how much jeopardy it can put you in. For example, a silencer used on a firearm should not make any difference to the justification or use of force. But, a sawed off shotgun might be a different position. The most important possibility I can see where it makes a difference would be a fully automatic weapon. We have already seen cases where a person was justified in using deadly force, but too many shots fired made it excessive force. I would think an automatic weapon would make this much more likely. While you might justify the first shot or even two, can you justify 15 when the last three or four were after the suspect was on the ground? I am not sure if a destructive weapon, say a .700 elephant gun, would make a difference over a smaller weapon.

[powerboatr]

I think it depends on the NFA device how much jeopardy it can put you in. For example, a silencer used on a firearm should not make any difference to the justification or use of force. But, a sawed off shotgun might be a different position. The most important possibility I can see where it makes a difference would be a fully automatic weapon. We have already seen cases where a person was justified in using deadly force, but too many shots fired made it excessive force. I would think an automatic weapon would make this much more likely. While you might justify the first shot or even two, can you justify 15 when the last three or four were after the suspect was on the ground? I am not sure if a destructive weapon, say a .700 elephant gun, would make a difference over a smaller weapon.

too many shots fired?
didnt maya angelou shoot the intruder in the chest then in the head becasue she wanted to ensure he stayed put?

i was always taught to stop putting bullet in the bad person once they stopped having the ability to get up or move. in my case i am not a doctor, so chest, followed by head if it still moves. if i am scared and it takes 16 shots or 3 so be it

and yes DA's are a sneaky bunch and could see why did you put 3 in the bad guy questions??
very good question

[clarionite]

I think it depends on the NFA device how much jeopardy it can put you in. For example, a silencer used on a firearm should not make any difference to the justification or use of force. But, a sawed off shotgun might be a different position. The most important possibility I can see where it makes a difference would be a fully automatic weapon. We have already seen cases where a person was justified in using deadly force, but too many shots fired made it excessive force. I would think an automatic weapon would make this much more likely. While you might justify the first shot or even two, can you justify 15 when the last three or four were after the suspect was on the ground? I am not sure if a destructive weapon, say a .700 elephant gun, would make a difference over a smaller weapon.

too many shots fired?
didnt maya angelou shoot the intruder in the chest then in the head becasue she wanted to ensure he stayed put?

i was always taught to stop putting bullet in the bad person once they stopped having the ability to get up or move. in my case i am not a doctor, so chest, followed by head if it still moves. if i am scared and it takes 16 shots or 3 so be it

and yes DA's are a sneaky bunch and could see why did you put 3 in the bad guy questions??
very good question

I've always liked the (Probably made up) anecdote about the prosecutor saying why did you shot him x times? And the response of, well when I pulled the trigger the x+1th time it just went click.

But I tell my students to shoot to remove the threat. Since you're only justified to shoot if there's a threat to someone's life, then when that threat is gone you've gone to far if you keep shooting.

[RSX11]

[I've always liked the (Probably made up) anecdote about the prosecutor saying why did you shot him x times? And the response of, well when I pulled the trigger the x+1th time it just went click.
/quote]

Reminds me of a case quite a while back in Houstomn, where a cop shot a goblin 13 times. The joke went "heck, if he'd had 4 more rounds, he could have finished writing his name in bullets".

About the same time when the Houston police chief was asked by a reporter, who was upset to have learned that some Houston cops were armed with model 29s, why were some Houston cops carrying .44 Magnums as duty weapons. He replied "Because that's the biggest thing they can get".

[The Annoyed Man]

I think it depends on the NFA device how much jeopardy it can put you in. For example, a silencer used on a firearm should not make any difference to the justification or use of force. But, a sawed off shotgun might be a different position. The most important possibility I can see where it makes a difference would be a fully automatic weapon. We have already seen cases where a person was justified in using deadly force, but too many shots fired made it excessive force. I would think an automatic weapon would make this much more likely. While you might justify the first shot or even two, can you justify 15 when the last three or four were after the suspect was on the ground? I am not sure if a destructive weapon, say a .700 elephant gun, would make a difference over a smaller weapon.

Both of my primary home-defense weapons (a G17 and a SBRed AR) have a suppressor attached, and there’s a very simple explanation. Shooting a gun inside a house is freakin' LOUD!!, and I’ve already lost hearing in one ear. I really don’t want to damage my hearing any worse. Although I prefer to use a suppressor at the range, I don’t always do it because some of my rifles and most of my pistols lack either a threaded barrel or a suppressor mount.

But when I do keep a rifle in my vehicle, it is unsuppressed for exactly these kinds of reasons. What I might have to do inside of my house is a lot easier to defend than what I might have to do on the street. Now, if TEOTWAWKI arises, then I won’t worry about that stuff.

[Rafe]

After reading this thread, I'm thinking I need to retire my home defense system and look at choosing something else. I'm thinking that running a suppressed, full-auto, .700 Nitro Express may not be the best idea...


It's Steve's fault! He mentioned a .700 caliber! In this video, of course, the shooter only has a measly double-barrel hunting gun: no full-auto, no suppressor...