This is my personal theory and I would appreciate comments from anyone in LE and such.

All I ever hear is how you should never use an NFA weapon in court because it looks bad and you might never get it back and such.

My feelings are, if a short barreled 870 works that much better in confined spaces, and you have proof that you have proficient training with it(like a tactical shotgun course or something) and if you did use it, and you came out alive, big deal if it gets took away. You survived. Maybe that extra 4 inches shorter wouldn't have made the difference, but maybe it did cause you know that weapon so well.

So do ya'll see a flaw in that? It's just money, if you come out alive, that's the big deal, right?

Considering people get persecuted by DA's for lasers and ammuntion selection, killing someone with a NFA weapon would be seriously misconstrued. An expert witness could easily refute this, but that may not be enough. Seldom are justifiable homocides black and white, nothing ever is...atleast in my life. If there is anybit of grey in your shooting, that little grey in concert with a NFA weapon could hang you up with a grand jury. I am not saying you will get convicted, but you could go through the motions. I cant think of a better HD weapon than a SBS/SBR, but you undertake a huge risk by using one for defensive use, IMO. By that same token, you are probably going to suffer the same fate if you are using a 16 inch AR15, which will be almost as badly construed. Sadly, a weapons appearance really goes along way in this country, as we learned from a federal law which banned these cosmetic features. This, in addition to the downfalls of a SBS would keep me from using one, though I have enough space to get by with a 18.5 870 or 16 inch carbine, especially with variable stocks. It really shouldn't matter how you introduce some killer to god, who just broke in to wreck your life....but sadly, it does. Like I said, unless you are using a non GB Mini 14 or a 5 shot 870, sans pistol grip you are probably going to be fucked anways.

That's kinda what I mean
You might as well go all the way out if your gonna use anything somewhat tactical? sans full auto that is...

There are 2 sides to every court case and taking a tactical course on one hand shows responsibility, but on the other shows some intent to look for trouble, or so it can be argued.  An SBS to you is a sawed-off shotgun to a prosecutor, legal or not and he need only ask the jury why one needs a sawed-off shotgun.

It's just one possible weakness in an otherwise legal shooting.

Well, eventually, I plan to be an officer of the law, so I think it would be a little easier to prove my innocence. I do see what ya'll are saying though.

Looks like I need to get a SxS...

Quoted: Considering people get persecuted by DA's for lasers and ammuntion selection, killing someone with a NFA weapon would be seriously misconstrued. An expert witness could easily refute this, but that may not be enough. Seldom are justifiable homocides black and white, nothing ever is...atleast in my life. If there is anybit of grey in your shooting, that little grey in concert with a NFA weapon could hang you up with a grand jury. I am not saying you will get convicted, but you could go through the motions. I cant think of a better HD weapon than a SBS/SBR, but you undertake a huge risk by using one for defensive use, IMO. By that same token, you are probably going to suffer the same fate if you are using a 16 inch AR15, which will be almost as badly construed. Sadly, a weapons appearance really goes along way in this country, as we learned from a federal law which banned these cosmetic features. This, in addition to the downfalls of a SBS would keep me from using one, though I have enough space to get by with a 18.5 870 or 16 inch carbine, especially with variable stocks. It really shouldn't matter how you introduce some killer to god, who just broke in to wreck your life....but sadly, it does. Like I said, unless you are using a non GB Mini 14 or a 5 shot 870, sans pistol grip you are probably going to be fucked anways.

From the ARFCOM "ammo oracle":
___________________________________
Q. I am never going to use handload/law enforcement only/specialized rounds for self defense because that fact will be used against me in a criminal/civil proceeding to show I am a evil man/woman and be used to imprison/bankrupt me.
We think this is hooey.

AR15.com member "Austrian" (also an attorney) has been running down this potential myth for years. No one he has asked has been able to produce a citation to any court case or other proceeding which used loading data or choice of bullet to augment a criminal or civil judgment or sentence.

If you have ANY citations that would support this belief please forward them to Austrian via email.

_______________________________________
I'd like to hear of any actuall case in real life where anyone got time for the weapon/ammo choice, in a truly legitamate shoot.

Also, I think the main issue with useing a class 3 weapon is that you are required to keep it locked up (? or so I've heard?), wich meens it isn't available to you when you need it.

My colleague is an expert witness who defends people in justifiable homocides all over the country.
According to him, there is always some dickweed DA making a big deal out of ammo selection, weapons or weapons accessories. It depends on personal politics, if you are antigun, you aren't going to take it to kindly when someone kills an intruder with a weapon you don't think they should be able to own, now you have your chance to make that opinion known, hell maybe even set some type of precidnet. I sincerely doubt any lawyer, including one from Austria, has poured over every line of court transcripts from every justifiable homocide in the country. I didn't say anything about convictions...think of it like a balancing act. You start out even, or slightly behind and

circumstances may turn the scales against you, ending up with an endightment for capital murder, or murder 2. Weapon choice or similar, MAY be just one thing too many in the mind of a juror, especially if they can't fathom why anyone should be allowed to own weapons like this...and, we are the minority. The people who would outlaw assault weapons and NFA ownership outnumber "us" probably 100 to 1, at least. They would pitch a fit about NFA legalities if the common perception wasn't that its illegal to own a machine gun. This isn't "hooey". Its something that needs to be considered, no matter how retarted it is. What the end result is, count on the DA making a big deal out of it if you whack someone with a registered M249, no matter what the circumstances are. What the consequences of his inflation is unknown. Do what you want, just don't act suprised when a DA paints you like an assassin for using a laser to give Tyrone a third eyeball.

Yeah, I hear what you are all saying. My concern would be over the civil consequences more than the criminal. A right shoot is a right shoot. In civil cases the burden is much lower, as we know. Even if you win, you will very likely be broke. Still, I kind of agree with the original poster; it's better to be alive and broke, than rich and dead.hinking.gif

How about useing a Serbu Super Shorty and loading the first round as "DRAGONS BREATH", that way you can light the intruder on fire before you kill him, plus all the evedence will self destruct in the fire?

Yeah, I bet you'd get shit for that.

Geez, I may have to keep a large rock next to the night stand for things that go bump in the night. Actually, it comes in the form of a Sig 220. Yeah, I'd like to light someone up with something NFA, but they're just too many a-hole ADAs that want to make a name for themselves. Thus, a bone stock pistol shooting factory ammo. Now, I just need to get my hands on the ammo that the local sheriffs are using.

Here in FL we are now supposed to have laws to protect us when we have to shoot to defend ourselves/family in our own homes or anywhere we are lawfully in place.  All things considered it's still easier to get out of jail than it is a slab in the morgue.

Quoted: There are 2 sides to every court case and taking a tactical course on one hand shows responsibility, but on the other shows some intent to look for trouble, or so it can be argued.

i don't understand how you can logically argue that someone was looking for trouble in there own home in the middle of the night when someone broke in and got shot with a registered and legal SBS.  I could possibly understand this if it was being used as a truck gun and you were driving through the ghetto w/ a confederate flag on the windshield, but not in a home invassion.


Of course the DA wouldnt let a little thing like logic get in the way of their argument.