Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/9/2010 9:47:56 AM EDT
What legal issues might someone run into with useing a suppressed pistol for home defense assuming they are legal to own and use in the jurisdiction of a persons area or residence. My logic is that it serves as hearing protection for my self and family and to reduce the ammount of trauma my children would suffer emotionally from the event. My arguement to LE would be to that effect as well as if neccesary reiterating that LE uses them for similar reasons. What do you guys think. has anyone dealt with this? dose anyone here keep a suppressed pistol for home defense in their house?
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 11:30:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2010 12:25:06 PM EDT by torozmaster]
Around here- A man in his castle..... If you are worried- use it then remove it!
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 12:55:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By torozmaster:
Around here- A man in his castle..... If you are worried- use it then remove it!


+1

I would do the same.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 7:31:53 PM EDT
I have two thoughts. First lieing about anything or hiding anything during the investigation after you shot somebody is stupid. You may get away with it or you may not. What happens if you get caught...tampering with evidence...obstruction of justice...or whatever else it maybe called where you live. If you are in the right and its a legal shoot then do not tamper with or lie about anything. You can always request a lawyer before you say anything. Plus if you get caught in a little lie... the cops with start wondering what big stuff you are being dishonest about. Second if you do use a suppressor then you may run the risk of it sitting in a police evidence room for a while...if not years. Or they could just give it back to you.

Biggest thing.... is be very careful asking legal advice or using advice given on the internet. Things are different from one place to another and what maybe legal or police procedure here maybe totally different from where you live.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:45:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By m1garand__man:
. What do you guys think. has anyone dealt with this? dose anyone here keep a suppressed pistol for home defense in their house?


NO!


If it happens to be attached when I grab it, fine. Intentionally, heeeeeeel no. And I have a badge!

SBR/SBS, Heeeeel yes. Silencers/suppressors? Nowayjose.

Remember folks, when you do this that most jurors believe cans are ILLEGAL and have no purpose. Do YOU want one judging you? I'll go with no, what you do is your business.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:46:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 7:46:32 AM EDT by r-2-k-b-a]
Originally Posted By torozmaster:
Around here- A man in his castle..... If you are worried- use it then remove it!




THIS can lead to EPIC-Fail.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:48:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By m1garand__man:
What legal issues might someone run into with useing a suppressed pistol for home defense assuming they are legal to own and use in the jurisdiction of a persons area or residence. My logic is that it serves as hearing protection for my self and family and to reduce the ammount of trauma my children would suffer emotionally from the event. My arguement to LE would be to that effect as well as if neccesary reiterating that LE uses them for similar reasons. What do you guys think. has anyone dealt with this? dose anyone here keep a suppressed pistol for home defense in their house?


Likely more than you would want to pay to defend against, or "if you could afford it, you wouldn't need to ask."
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 8:05:32 AM EDT
I wouldn't do it because the jurors will think it's illegal (as stated in above comment).


SHTF or EOTWAWKI? Yes.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 8:08:43 AM EDT
All my HD guns are suppressed. Its the right tool for the application.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 8:23:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 8:25:11 AM EDT by OLI62]
Has there been any recorded cases of someone defending their home with a suppressed weapon against assailants? I'd be curious to know.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 8:29:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLI62:
Has there been any recorded cases of someone defending their home with a suppressed weapon against assailants? I'd be curious to know.


Two cases I know of where legally posessed MG's were used, but I do not beleive suppressors were involved.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 12:38:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DStrokes:
I wouldn't do it because the jurors will think it's illegal (as stated in above comment).


SHTF or EOTWAWKI? Yes.

It simply does not matter what the jury thinks.

The jury is there to charge you based on the law as written - not on what they think and what isn't law.

Unless there is a specific statute on the books that states that you are not permitted to use silencers/NFA items in self-defense then I would not worry about it.

In fact, there was the story about the guy who used an AC556 (I think that was it) against the 2 guys who were trying to kill him and his girlfriend. He fired a few warning shots and then ended up having to shoot the assailants. In court the prosecutor tried to bring up the "OMG HE USED A MACHINEGUN!!!!" angle and was shot down by the judge.

Again - I'm not concerned about it if there's not a statute on the books about it.

YMMV, IANAL, etc.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 12:59:40 PM EDT
Check your local laws. I'm thinking about doing up an SBR suppressed in 9mm for HD (or .223). But when it comes to it, you need to know the local law.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:03:02 PM EDT
The jury doesnt care about your hearing, just that you used something evil.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:08:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By andrasik:
In fact, there was the story about the guy who used an AC556 (I think that was it) against the 2 guys who were trying to kill him and his girlfriend. He fired a few warning shots and then ended up having to shoot the assailants. In court the prosecutor tried to bring up the "OMG HE USED A MACHINEGUN!!!!" angle and was shot down by the judge.


http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749/

"F*** You and Your Automatic Rifle!"
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 2:33:20 PM EDT
After reading that story- I bought an Al Mar knife.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 5:00:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 5:09:02 PM EDT by mike12345]
I won't leave a silencer sitting out unsecured.

I use Non-nfa weapons for HD because I can leave it out and not have to lock it up. If it gets stolen it's not as big of a deal. It's easyer for them to take the AR15 or whatever then mess with my safes so hopefully they will take the AR and leave. If it gets used and taken as evidence, it's also not a big deal.

I wouldent want law enforcement taking NFA Items that are registered to me.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 6:37:25 PM EDT
All good points all around. To tell you the truth I was looking for one of those pistol safes to put the whole set up in but the 92fs with AAC OMNI attached is 17" or so if I remeber right and there are no pistol safes that deep that I know about. I usually load and put my HD pistol on the night stand before I go to sleep and then clear and store it in my safe before I go to work because of having kids in the house.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:10:34 AM EDT
My main home defense firearms are a suppressed Glock and a suppressed 10.5" AR.

I'm not going to fight for my life with Grandpa's double barrel just because it might look better to some hypothetical jury I may never face.

If I shoot someone with the pistol, I plan to remove the suppressor and store it securely, if I have time. If I am asked if I used a suppressor I will not lie. If asked if I changed the configuration of the gun after shooting, I will not lie, and will say I just wanted it secured before who knows who was wandering through my house.

But more specifically, if I ever have to shoot someone in my house, my wife is instructed to call my friend, an attorney, while I complain of chest pains and ask to be taken to the hospital. I probably won't have to fake it.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 5:24:32 PM EDT
Some states might have extra restrictions when dealing with any tite 2 weapon.

Only big federal thing I can think of is if one screwed up and somehow got charged with a crime of violence while trying to defend them selfs. Using a machine gun, dd, or suppressor in connection to a crime of violence is a 30 year mandatory lockup if convicted.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 7:13:33 PM EDT
Theres no law against protecting yourself in a dire situation if you legally own a silencer and use it to hush your blaster. With a good lawyer the jury will become educated in the legalities of NFA items and soon learn its not the tool of assassins as hollywood told them. Be honest to LE if you use your can to defend yourself & family. We need pioneers for silencer use in AMerica and stop worrying about the criminals rights and Nazi like LE that tell you otherwise. Besides, who wants to wake up the sleeping baby or gramma in the other room when a meth head has broken into your home Keep your guns quiet. I'll just show LE my tinitus(ear ringing) disabilty issued by the VA from service if I ever need to protect me and those I love.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 9:47:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/11/2010 9:48:17 PM EDT by r-2-k-b-a]
Good points on both sides, both valid.

BUT, as I said, you folks with cans on your HD guns are good to go, Just not me.

One of the main reasons is because as someone else said, I refuse to leave any NFA stuff out and I will simply not take it in an out of the safe every night/morning. I got a .40 glock, a flashlight and I'm good to go. If I cause a shitload of noise in the process, thats the least of my concerns when I'm putting .40's in someones chest in my house. A little noise might actually help disoerient and the flash will help me see.

Link Posted: 9/12/2010 11:07:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 12:26:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2010 12:27:55 PM EDT by tony_k]
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:37:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2010 2:39:14 PM EDT by customcruiser]
Originally Posted By tony_k:
Originally Posted By Unicorn:
You have to be charged with something before you see a jury ... (snip)

Not true.

Even if the DA does not charge you, in many states, you can be sued by the slimebag you shoot, or his family. And that puts you in front of a jury in civil court, where the standards of evidence are way lower.

It is entirely possible that LE will decide your shooting was justified ... and then you will lose your home, your savings and your future income anyway, in civil court. Even if you win the civil suit, the legal costs of your defense may bankrupt you.

Just sayin'......





Gotta love the legal system sometimes... sounds like OJ
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 3:26:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 3:27:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2010 3:27:29 PM EDT by andrasik]

Originally Posted By tony_k:
Originally Posted By Unicorn:
You have to be charged with something before you see a jury ... (snip)

Not true.

Even if the DA does not charge you, in many states, you can be sued by the slimebag you shoot, or his family. And that puts you in front of a jury in civil court, where the standards of evidence are way lower.

It is entirely possible that LE will decide your shooting was justified ... and then you will lose your home, your savings and your future income anyway, in civil court. Even if you win the civil suit, the legal costs of your defense may bankrupt you.

Just sayin'......



Granted, the legal standard in a civil suit is preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not mean that the statutes fly out the window in a civil case. I still say that unless there was a statutory prohibition on using an NFA item to defend the home that you should be good. Simply looking at it from that perspective, I mean.

I see the points being made on not leaving NFA accessible (very true), but I just don't think that you can get screwed unless you violate the law. A good shoot should be a good shoot. Then again, who wants to be the one to test that?

IANAL and YMMV, etc.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 5:15:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eric10mm:

Originally Posted By tony_k:
Originally Posted By Unicorn:
You have to be charged with something before you see a jury ... (snip)

Not true.

Even if the DA does not charge you, in many states, you can be sued by the slimebag you shoot, or his family. And that puts you in front of a jury in civil court, where the standards of evidence are way lower.

It is entirely possible that LE will decide your shooting was justified ... and then you will lose your home, your savings and your future income anyway, in civil court. Even if you win the civil suit, the legal costs of your defense may bankrupt you.

Just sayin'......


Thank GOD for Castle Laws!



Well you can be sued for everything you have in any self defense case as far as I know. But would castle laws protect you from being sued? If so thats new to me.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 5:23:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By m1garand__man:
Originally Posted By eric10mm:

Originally Posted By tony_k:
Originally Posted By Unicorn:
You have to be charged with something before you see a jury ... (snip)

Not true.

Even if the DA does not charge you, in many states, you can be sued by the slimebag you shoot, or his family. And that puts you in front of a jury in civil court, where the standards of evidence are way lower.

It is entirely possible that LE will decide your shooting was justified ... and then you will lose your home, your savings and your future income anyway, in civil court. Even if you win the civil suit, the legal costs of your defense may bankrupt you.

Just sayin'......


Thank GOD for Castle Laws!



Well you can be sued for everything you have in any self defense case as far as I know. But would castle laws protect you from being sued? If so thats new to me.

Certain state castle laws provide a defense against a civil suit if the shoot was ruled legit.

FL comes to mind.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 6:03:50 PM EDT
I wouldn't risk it. A jury can be mighty finicky.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 6:14:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 8:47:26 PM EDT
Add TN to that safe list, so it's 48 others sets of laws we have to worry about...

I don't have any cans yet, but this is a question I'd asked myself in thinking ahead. Lots of interesting responses.

Even though anyone inside your home uninvited in TN is presumed to be there to do you harm and may be dealt with accordingly...and even though you can't be civilly sued for such a shooting...the press would likely make a big deal of it, which opens a whole new can of worms if you are keeping your predilection for Class III stuff on the down-low.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 3:00:22 AM EDT
South carolina passed the castle docterine last year I believe?
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 3:39:47 AM EDT
It's a non-issue.

A good shoot is a good shoot, whether it's done with a suppressed pistol, .50BMG, your granpappy's 30-06, or a crossbow.

Regardless of what the prosecutor might try to throw at a jury, if you're justified in using deadly force, you're justified in using deadly force.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 4:22:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FredMan:
It's a non-issue.

A good shoot is a good shoot, whether it's done with a suppressed pistol, .50BMG, your granpappy's 30-06, or a crossbow.

Regardless of what the prosecutor might try to throw at a jury, if you're justified in using deadly force, you're justified in using deadly force.


Whether you are in fact justified, and whether you will be found justified by the jury, are [sadly] two different questions. Some of you really place a lot of faith in 6 or 12 of your "peers."

Bottom line, their is no clear line as to what is too "tactical" for home defense. Different locales, different levels of gun-friendliness, different jury pools. Heck, different juries on different days even. You have to realize that the issue raised by the OP isn't a clear "yes" or "no" answer, but rather a spectrum: home defense choices range anywhere from a baseball bat to a suppressed M16. Find the spot on the spectrum that gives you the largest tactical advantage you are personally comfortable with, realizing that you may have to defend your choice in court because our system isn't perfect.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 5:52:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 5:54:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 7:45:46 AM EDT
Add Texas to the list of states that you're immune from civil liability if your use of force is justified.

See: Civil Practice and Remedies Code Sec. 83.001 Civil Immunity

I personally know of an officer who drowned a woman to death. His use of force was justified. That said, I wouldn't worry about what's hanging off the end of your gun as long as you're using it legally.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:27:33 AM EDT
I do not think I've read anybody here yet say it would be ILLEGAL to use a suppressor in such a manner. The issues and concerns raised were....1-police taking it as evidence and 2-if you are charged how would it look to a jury. I think issue 1 has been covered. Issue 2 seems to be were the debate is. Again there is no known law saying you can not use them (home defense) so you aren't going to get charged for it. Where it becomes a factor....and anybody who does not thinkis possible has not spent a lot of time in our legal systems....is if it makes its way in front of a jury be it a grand jury/criminal/civil, the fact you had a suppressor on a handgun will come up and that will be discussed in the jury room. It will affect how the "common people" look/feel/think at what happened. Even if you come out OK...how much of your own money would have to spend to make sure you had proper legal advice on how to protect your self.

And I love the guys that keep throwing in the castle laws. I have not kept up on these...and for the most part I agree with them BUT––––most are fairly new laws. They are just now starting to make their way into courtrooms and being used. I wonder how long it will be before some liberal judge with the right case and the right argument finds them unconstiutional because you denied somebody their "rights".

So to each their own. If you want to use a suppressor then do so.....if you have concerns about it then do not use them. There are Pros and Cons to both sides and depending where you live, you may have different concerns then somebody else.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:54:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2010 9:04:41 AM EDT by r-2-k-b-a]
Originally Posted By tony_k:
Originally Posted By Unicorn:
You have to be charged with something before you see a jury ... (snip)

Not true.

Even if the DA does not charge you, in many states, you can be sued by the slimebag you shoot, or his family. And that puts you in front of a jury in civil court, where the standards of evidence are way lower.

It is entirely possible that LE will decide your shooting was justified ... and then you will lose your home, your savings and your future income anyway, in civil court. Even if you win the civil suit, the legal costs of your defense may bankrupt you.

Just sayin'......





Correct, unfortunately. But it simply depends on where you live if this type of suit has any teeth. But remember, even in TEXAS, you are not in the clear automatically, but in general yes:
––––-

Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.

Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
––––––
But here in civil statutes as was posted earlier:

––––––-
CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT

CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.

––––––

One seems to contradict the other one, but if you look at the dates it was in effect, you see how OLD some statutes are. IN-GENERAL, you are immune providing there are not other circumstances that the plaintiff can prove. ( or plaintiff's family :) ) I believe the section 83.001 was put in place due to the vulchers we call lawyers who used the system to make family members rich and to try to provide protection to the VICTIMS. TEXAS is a good place to live and provides the best protection as far as I know for victims of violent crime, in both court systems.


Link Posted: 9/13/2010 10:05:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By west2746:
I do not think I've read anybody here yet say it would be ILLEGAL to use a suppressor in such a manner. The issues and concerns raised were....1-police taking it as evidence and 2-if you are charged how would it look to a jury. I think issue 1 has been covered. Issue 2 seems to be were the debate is. Again there is no known law saying you can not use them (home defense) so you aren't going to get charged for it. Where it becomes a factor....and anybody who does not thinkis possible has not spent a lot of time in our legal systems....is if it makes its way in front of a jury be it a grand jury/criminal/civil, the fact you had a suppressor on a handgun will come up and that will be discussed in the jury room. It will affect how the "common people" look/feel/think at what happened. Even if you come out OK...how much of your own money would have to spend to make sure you had proper legal advice on how to protect your self.

And I love the guys that keep throwing in the castle laws. I have not kept up on these...and for the most part I agree with them BUT––––most are fairly new laws. They are just now starting to make their way into courtrooms and being used. I wonder how long it will be before some liberal judge with the right case and the right argument finds them unconstiutional because you denied somebody their "rights".

So to each their own. If you want to use a suppressor then do so.....if you have concerns about it then do not use them. There are Pros and Cons to both sides and depending where you live, you may have different concerns then somebody else.

There's already a case where the judge made it CLEAR that the weapon used is not the issue.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 12:09:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ccosby:
Some states might have extra restrictions when dealing with any tite 2 weapon.

Only big federal thing I can think of is if one screwed up and somehow got charged with a crime of violence while trying to defend them selfs. Using a machine gun, dd, or suppressor in connection to a crime of violence is a 30 year mandatory lockup if convicted.


That's a federal sentencing guideline. Most HD shootings will be tried in state/county courts, not federal courts.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 12:21:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By andrasik:

Originally Posted By west2746:
I do not think I've read anybody here yet say it would be ILLEGAL to use a suppressor in such a manner. The issues and concerns raised were....1-police taking it as evidence and 2-if you are charged how would it look to a jury. I think issue 1 has been covered. Issue 2 seems to be were the debate is. Again there is no known law saying you can not use them (home defense) so you aren't going to get charged for it. Where it becomes a factor....and anybody who does not thinkis possible has not spent a lot of time in our legal systems....is if it makes its way in front of a jury be it a grand jury/criminal/civil, the fact you had a suppressor on a handgun will come up and that will be discussed in the jury room. It will affect how the "common people" look/feel/think at what happened. Even if you come out OK...how much of your own money would have to spend to make sure you had proper legal advice on how to protect your self.

And I love the guys that keep throwing in the castle laws. I have not kept up on these...and for the most part I agree with them BUT––––most are fairly new laws. They are just now starting to make their way into courtrooms and being used. I wonder how long it will be before some liberal judge with the right case and the right argument finds them unconstiutional because you denied somebody their "rights".

So to each their own. If you want to use a suppressor then do so.....if you have concerns about it then do not use them. There are Pros and Cons to both sides and depending where you live, you may have different concerns then somebody else.

There's already a case where the judge made it CLEAR that the weapon used is not the issue.


Was this a federal case...local...state....because that doesnt mean where that case was anybody else even has to look at it for other cases.

Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:17:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FredMan:
It's a non-issue.

A good shoot is a good shoot, whether it's done with a suppressed pistol, .50BMG, your granpappy's 30-06, or a crossbow.

Regardless of what the prosecutor might try to throw at a jury, if you're justified in using deadly force, you're justified in using deadly force.


Imagine using that AR crossbow upper for home defense.
Top Top