Armory Sponsor
Posted: 9/10/2026 9:09:02 AM EDT
|
Attached File I got three silencers yesterday. They are registered to me and not a trust. The 9mm one will live on one pistol at home for me to use. If someone kicks in my door while I'm at work and she uses that gun with my silencer mounted to it would we both have committed a crime? (Her for using the NFA item without me present, and me for letting her)? The gun store who sold them to me said that'll be the case. I have other pistols for her to grab and don't really need the device to defend the apartment, but I just want it there to save my hearing if I NEED to use it. I'll move the silencers into a trust with her name on them (my adult son too) but until then what trouble would we be in in a self defense situation? |
The “Three Stupid” Rule: “Do not go to stupid places, with stupid people, and do stupid things”
Religion is a handy device for keeping the philosophically deficient in line.
Religion is a handy device for keeping the philosophically deficient in line.
|
Originally Posted By John-in-austin: You guys overthink the silliest stuff. It's a life or death emergency. Screw the administrative rules, worry about them later. The gun store said "you'll be a felon". I really don't want my girlfriend to have a felony because I didn't take a silencer off. |
The “Three Stupid” Rule: “Do not go to stupid places, with stupid people, and do stupid things”
Religion is a handy device for keeping the philosophically deficient in line.
Religion is a handy device for keeping the philosophically deficient in line.
|
Originally Posted By boomfab: Considering you can go buy a new can on a 4473 w/o NFA paperwork in many states now, I don't see how your trust details even matter anymore. Michigan isn't one of them. They're unlawful to possess without NFA paperwork. It's an old law about to be corrected but it still exists. |
The “Three Stupid” Rule: “Do not go to stupid places, with stupid people, and do stupid things”
Religion is a handy device for keeping the philosophically deficient in line.
Religion is a handy device for keeping the philosophically deficient in line.
| I believe the latest ATF rule update (not sure when it’s supposed to go live?) addresses this. But yes I agree that this is a silly thing to worry about. It’s a legally owned can, and the chances of her needing to use it are incredibly slim as is. It’s extremely difficult to imagine an officer writing that charge or the prosecutor approving it. |
|
Originally Posted By JellyBelly: The gun store said "you'll be a felon". I really don't want my girlfriend to have a felony because I didn't take a silencer off. Well first off, don't ask gun shop employees for legal advice. Totality of the circumstances. If you were bleeding to death and the govt told you it was a felony to use your buddy's tourniquet, would you worry about it? I have not in my 68 years on this planet, seen a person save themselves from a violent attack and then be prosecuted for the tool they used to do it. If you have, feel free to post the court case. Heck, I have worked a case where the guy STOLE A CAR in order to get his kid to the ER. No one even suggested prosecuting him. |
Joined:
Aug 2026
Posts:
401
EE: 0% (0)
ZAF
|
Originally Posted By John-in-austin: Well first off, don't ask gun shop employees for legal advice. EXACTLY We handled a shooting death where the victim was a felon and used an illegally obtained gun to defend himself from a home invader. The victim then called the police for help because the dead guy fell on top of him and he couldnt get out from underneath him (the dead guy weighed 350lbs). Homicide came out looked at the scene, took the gun and NO Charges were ever filed...they did tell the victim he couldnt have the gun back. Might she get charged? yeah I suppose so. Might you get charged? yeah to that one too BUT youd almost have to have the worst luck in the world for that to happen on an obviously self defense home invasion. IF youre really that worried, I consider moving |
|
Around here, if my wife used one of my suppressed pistols or SBR in self defense, the cops would tell her good job, thank you for doing it quietly and not disturbing your neighbors…. Location might be the problem. |
I don't need therapy. I just need someone to rob me at the gas station so I can let it all out.
|
Originally Posted By John-in-austin: Well first off, don't ask gun shop employees for legal advice. Totality of the circumstances. If you were bleeding to death and the govt told you it was a felony to use your buddy's tourniquet, would you worry about it? I have not in my 68 years on this planet, seen a person save themselves from a violent attack and then be prosecuted for the tool they used to do it. If you have, feel free to post the court case. Heck, I have worked a case where the guy STOLE A CAR in order to get his kid to the ER. No one even suggested prosecuting him. Originally Posted By John-in-austin: Originally Posted By JellyBelly: The gun store said "you'll be a felon". I really don't want my girlfriend to have a felony because I didn't take a silencer off. Well first off, don't ask gun shop employees for legal advice. Totality of the circumstances. If you were bleeding to death and the govt told you it was a felony to use your buddy's tourniquet, would you worry about it? I have not in my 68 years on this planet, seen a person save themselves from a violent attack and then be prosecuted for the tool they used to do it. If you have, feel free to post the court case. Heck, I have worked a case where the guy STOLE A CAR in order to get his kid to the ER. No one even suggested prosecuting him. Yup. Extenuating circumstances obviate things like this. There have been cases of prohibited persons using a firearm in self defense, and not being charged because the defense of self was ruled valid. |
|
Originally Posted By bluemax_1: Yup. Extenuating circumstances obviate things like this. There have been cases of prohibited persons using a firearm in self defense, and not being charged because the defense of self was ruled valid. And there are the opposite cases. A few days ago this guy was charged and convicted after shooting a murderer he witnessed. Fortunately just probation. And this is in Michigan. https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/fairlane-shooting-19-year-old-who-acted-self-defense-killing-mall-gunman-sentenced |
|
Originally Posted By RenegadeX: And there are the opposite cases. A few days ago this guy was charged and convicted after shooting a murderer he witnessed. Fortunately just probation. And this is in Michigan. https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/fairlane-shooting-19-year-old-who-acted-self-defense-killing-mall-gunman-sentenced Originally Posted By RenegadeX: Originally Posted By bluemax_1: Yup. Extenuating circumstances obviate things like this. There have been cases of prohibited persons using a firearm in self defense, and not being charged because the defense of self was ruled valid. And there are the opposite cases. A few days ago this guy was charged and convicted after shooting a murderer he witnessed. Fortunately just probation. And this is in Michigan. https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/fairlane-shooting-19-year-old-who-acted-self-defense-killing-mall-gunman-sentenced Different circumstances. This was a person carrying a firearm, when they weren’t legally able to carry, who was then charged and convicted for illegally carrying. They would have faced the same charge and conviction even if there was no shooting and they simply happened to have the firearm possession discovered by an LEO for some other reason. Someone using a firearm that belongs to another person living in the household to legally defend themselves is not the same thing. I explained this in a different thread a few months back. Extenuating circumstances change how laws and charges are viewed. It comes down to the same scenario as say, spraying someone in the face with oven cleaner when they’ve broken into your home and were assaulting/about to assault you. Oven cleaner is caustic. If it gets into a person’s eyes, it WILL cause injury, and quite possibly permanent visual impairment. It explicitly states that it’s illegal to use for non-intended purposes. Yet, you’re legally able to use WHATEVER is at hand if you have to defend yourself from imminent risk of death or grievous injury. Now if you sprayed someone in the face with oven cleaner WHILE they were assaulting you on a bus downtown, you would need to have one heckuva explanation for WHY you were carrying a can of oven cleaner for any legitimate purpose, and carrying it FOR self defense would NOT qualify. The person better have the ability to prove that they work as on-site housekeeping/cleaning and were on their way to, or from a job. |
|
I dont care what anyone does with their 2A kit but doesnt the ATF rules state the item must be locked up when not in the registered owners possession. The girlfriend cannot legally access the suppressor "if" this is true. You cant give her access to it. She cant know the code. She cant have a key. If I was in the jury, I would vote not guilty or nullify. |
Don't let the join date fool you... here since '97
Joined:
May 2014
Posts:
7386
EE: 100% (24)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By networkguru: I dont care what anyone does with their 2A kit but doesnt the ATF rules state the item must be locked up when not in the registered owners possession. The girlfriend cannot legally access the suppressor "if" this is true. You cant give her access to it. She cant know the code. She cant have a key. If I was in the jury, I would vote not guilty or nullify. |
www.HansohnBrothers.com
|
Originally Posted By bluemax_1: Different circumstances. My comment was based on the circumstance you mentioned, not the OP circumstance: There have been cases of prohibited persons using a firearm in self defense, and not being charged because the defense of self was ruled valid. |
Member
Joined:
Oct 2022
Posts:
3872
EE: 100% (85)
NC, USA
|
Originally Posted By JellyBelly: The gun store said "you'll be a felon". I really don't want my girlfriend to have a felony because I didn't take a silencer off. |
"Do what you do, just do it less shittily." Ben "The Realest" Stoeger
|
My take is by the absolute most strict (yet unrealistic) interpretation of the US federal code your girlfriend could be technically charged with a Title 26 USC SS 5861 part (B) "It shall be unlawful for any person - to receive or possess a firearm transferred to him in violation of the provisions of this chapter". To the best of my knowledge the National Firearm Act does not strictly define "possess" or "transferred". From a laymans perspective if she shot somebody with a suppressed handgun and you were also not around, she kinda had to possess it to independently shoot somebody with it. By extension if she possessed it to shoot somebody independently without the registrant in close proximity than it could be argued it had to be transferred to her in some way. That said I think the odds of the US DOJ deciding to attempt to Federally prosecute a woman who used a suppressed firearm not registered to her in the NFRTR but registered to somebody else in the same household/domicile to defend herself from a violent home invasion/robbery situation is about as close to zero as you can get. She probably has a higher odds of being struck by lightning when she walks out the door to meet the police who responded to the 911 call than being prosecuted by the DOJ for a USC Title 26 5861 (b) violation under those conditions. However it looks like you are in Michigan and Michigan restricts suppressors as "dangerous weapons" under MCL - Section 750.224 with an exception if you are "licensed" by the US Secretary. i.e. the registered owner in the NFA NFRTR. 750.224 Weapons; manufacture, sale, or possession as felony; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "muffler" or "silencer" defined. Sec. 224. (1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess any of the following: (a) A machine gun or firearm that shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than 1 shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. (b) A muffler or silencer. ......... (2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following: ......... (c) A person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or the secretary's delegate to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun, or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in subsection (1). ......... I don't know where you live in Michigan or what the political climate is in the County you live in where the local Michigan District Attorney gets to decide whether or not to charge your girlfriend with a State level 750.224 dangerous weapon felony possession charge. There are probably certain areas of Michigan where again she probably has "get struck by lightning odds of prosecution" for using a suppressor not registered to her and other areas where a local DA may raise an eyebrow whenever somebody uses firearm of any type to shoot somebody (self defense or not). I would hope that even if you lived in a rabid liberal area like Ann Arbor any self defense shooting by a woman during a home invasion the local DA doesn't attempt to prosecute the victim even if she used a suppressed handgun and may have technically violated MI 750.224. So your gun store advice while maybe "technically" correct in the most strict interpretation of both US and MI code, they also failed to provide the more realistic real world perspective on the odds this ever becomes an actual issue or problem under the scenario described. I have never heard of a woman (or anyone) using an NFA firearm not registered to them but registered to somebody else in the same household in a home invasion self defense shooting being prosecuted by anybody anywhere. So if somehow the moon and the stars aligned and your girlfriend was prosecuted under this proposed scenario it would be the first time ever in like 90+ years of the NFAs existence for this to happen. Personally I wouldn't worry about it but if your local MI DA is a complete flaming liberal, anti-2A, self defense hating shitbag that has a history of prosecuting civilians and/or PD for self defense shootings....than maybe consider leaving a non-suppressed handgun around for her to use in a self-defense scenario. Just my nickles worth anyway. |
Joined:
Jan 2026
Posts:
3
EE: 0% (0)
NE, USA
|
I live in a state where a guy was a legal gun owner (and Marine veteran), was on his own property with an assailant trying to bash his head in with a brick and force his face into a puddle with the other hand, shot the assailant, and got first degree murder charges. Tragically, he killed himself before the trial. If the prosecutor wants to, they can turn anything into a felony conviction. |
|
Originally Posted By john_doe_2: I live in a state where a guy was a legal gun owner (and Marine veteran), was on his own property with an assailant trying to bash his head in with a brick and force his face into a puddle with the other hand, shot the assailant, and got first degree murder charges. Tragically, he killed himself before the trial. If the prosecutor wants to, they can turn anything into a felony conviction. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By John-in-austin: You guys overthink the silliest stuff. It's a life or death emergency. Screw the administrative rules, worry about them later. FPNI |
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
|
Originally Posted By 18B30: If your G/F is using deadly for to stop a home invasion.....the NFA item will be the least of your concerns from a legal point of view. 18Z50 This. |
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Armory Sponsor