GLOCK suppressor silencer pistol
Jon Wayne Taylor for TTAG

 

Does the kind of firearm you use in a self-defense situation matter? If you shoot a home invader to protect your family with a suppressed handgun, does that present legal problems you wouldn’t face if you’d shot the attacker with a Ruger GP100? That’s a question that was raised recently by a commenter.

When a reader asserted that if you use a NFA-regulated gun (say, a short-barrel rifle) or a suppressor to defend yourself, “your ensuing legal adventures are going to be much more complicated and cost you a lot more in lawyers’ bills,” reader Cicero, an attorney, wrote this . . .

This is an important point that is commonly ignored.

Are suppressed SBR’s, suppressed AR pistols with an arm brace, or suppressed handguns great self-defense weapons? Of course, and they do have *some* advantages over unsuppressed weapons. But do those tactical advantages vs. a non-NFA weapon outweigh the inherent and serious additional legal hazards of using an NFA weapon for self-defense, especially with the current politicized DoJ or if you live in an unfriendly jurisdiction?

Imagine if you are in a Rittenhouse/Zimmerman self defense shooting, in a jurisdiction where the prosecutors are Soros puppets, or 1/6 DoJ-prosecutor types, or otherwise under political pressure to make an example of you.

If they collaborate to have the feds go after you, they can argue that you used an NFA weapon (SBR, suppressor, etc.) in a “crime of violence” (e.g., manslaughter if the perp dies, aggravated assault if he doesn’t).

Under 18 USC 1924(c)(1), it’s a **THIRTY YEAR** mandatory minimum sentence if they get you. And whether state “stand your ground” and other state procedural protections apply in federal court is at best unclear. So even if you just winged the perp, you’re looking at 30 years in federal prison if they convince the jury it wasn’t a good shoot.

With people like AG Garland willing to sic the FBI on parents merely seeking to exercise their first amendment rights with local school boards, does anyone doubt that his DoJ won’t try and throw the book at you, especially if encouraged to do so by the local Soros DA?

It’s up to you to weigh the advantages vs. risks. But for me, the advantages of using a suppressed vs. unsuppressed weapon for self defense do not outweigh the additional inherent legal risks, especially with the current politicized state of the DoJ.

We thought this was an interesting enough question that we sought out an attorney who deals in firearms law every day and has experience as both a local and a federal prosecutor.

I talked to Doug Richards, a partner at Richards Carrington in Denver. He has represented dozens of people involved in defensive gun uses (he’s an independent program attorney for US LawShield). Prior to that, he was an Assistant United States Attorney and an Assistant District Attorney in Houston. In other words, he has a lot of experience on both sides of the issue.

While he said the question of additional liability when defending yourself with an NFA item is a valid concern, Richards told me that in his experience, it rarely affects the prosecutor’s decision when evaluating a case of armed self-defense. He said the much more important question is whether the shooting itself was justified by the circumstances and the evidence. In a “straightforward” home defense situation, he told me, any additional risk is virtually zero.

If, however, there’s a question about whether or not the shooting was justifiable, it’s possible that the presence of an NFA item can become an additional problem for the defender depending on the prosecutor.

He stressed the importance of having an attorney speak for you in what he called the critical moments following a defensive gun use. As another attorney once told me while shaking his head, everyone has the right to remain silent, but few people are capable of it.

I brought up Cicero’s hypothetical of a high profile self defense situation. I asked him what would have happened if Mark McCloskey had a suppressor on the AR-15 he waived at protesters in front of his home back in 2020.

Richards conceded that in a case like that, in which self-defense was at least questionable, the presence of an NFA item is, in fact, more likely to result in more or heavier charges from a prosecutor. He reiterated, however, that those situations are very rare.

Maybe the the best indicator of what Richards really thinks of any possible additional legal jeopardy that might be involved in a defensive gun use while using a federally regulated firearm or silencer is his own choice for home defense.

He told me that his home defense nightstand pistol is equipped with a suppressor. He’s obviously not concerned about the possibility of facing additional federal charges if he has to use his gun to defend himself or his family. The question of how much that possibility is a problem, however, is up to you.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

89 COMMENTS

    • Silly hypothetical question.
      This is so unlikely to happen outside the home and just like using any other legal gun, dependent on the political climate where you are.
      A legal shoot where they follow the law, no problem.
      Do it in a city run by the Democrats, who knows.

      • In a home defense situation, are you going to take the time to get your ear protection on? Will your family? Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to hear faint sounds after you fire a shot?

        A quieter weapon has many advantages, even if it isn’t ‘whisper’ quiet. Note, relatively few ‘silenced’ weapons are so quiet you won’t notice their discharge. Most are loud like a slammed door or a backfire at the curb. Startled, not deafened.

  2. Since an owner has to submit to the application process and, if approved, pay for the tax stamp to legally own a suppressor, isn’t it assumed that the owner then has legal possession and use of such item? Do the criminal penalties of 18 USC 1924(c)(1) apply in such a case?

    • (Statute is actually 18 USC 924(c)(1).)

      Statute applies to any “crime of violence” committed with a firearm. Whether the firearm is legally owned is irrelevant. (c)(1) jacks the sentence up to 30 years if the firearm used is an NFA weapon (including suppressors) — it applies to lawfully owned ones used in a “crime of violence” (which can include aggravated assault).

  3. Fun thought:

    Suppose you use a firearm with a suppressor to righteously defend yourself and your family in a violent home-invasion. If you remove your suppressor, store it in your secured location, and exercise your right to remain silent (e.g. do NOT tell responding law enforcement that your suppressor was on your firearm when defended yourself)–how would law enforcement ever be able to claim that you used your suppressor in a sham legal prosecution?

    For starters, responding cops probably would not even know that you have a suppressor. Thus, when they show up, they won’t ask about one or even look for one if you exercise your right to remain silent. And that means there would be absolutely zero evidence that you used it.

    • Easey peasey. The inwestigaors” would simply check for powder residue in various specific places at the business end of the firearm. If there were NO TRACES of residue on the threads, and any rounds had been fired through that barrel, they’d scratch their heads and say HMMMMmmm.. somthing smells like fish here. Checking the NFA registry, which would be availble to them, would reveal that YOU own a suppressor, further checking would reveal it is of a model that would fit on and work with YOUR handgun. They would then demand to see the said suppressor. As “evidnce”. You’d be obligated to surrencer it, theybKNOW you still hve it, as it is registered to YOU. B B B B B b b butt SIR, I did not use that suppressor during this incident. He’d KNOW you are lying, after he also checked the suppressor itself for more residue.. none on the threads of IT< either, but plenty of it inside the device, that perfectly matches the type and age of the powder found at the scene and on the rest of your pistol.

      DO NOT under any circumstances mess with any evidence at the scene, and if you DO< make certain you explain to the Inwestigators what you moved, from where to where, and why VOunteer that information.

      Don't forget these inwestigaors have seen it all, and trust no one but themselves, and what the scene will tell them.

        • Sounds like most of the “investigators” “proof” can be avoided by just not having your gun perfectly clean at all times. Not hard if you’re actually using/shooting said firearms. Use non-corrosive ammo, never have your gun perfectly clean. If they want to start arguing about the age of the burnt powder (which definitively crosses from actual forensic science to quasi scientific bullcrap being weaponized for the purposes of a political witch hunt) any lawyer worth his salt will produce a credentialed expert witness to explain just how full of it the prosecution is.

  4. “I brought up Cicero’s hypothetical of a high profile self defense situation. I asked him what would have happened if Mark McCloskey had a suppressor on the AR-15 he waived at protesters in front of his home back in 2020.”

    *Instant* problem.

    NFA items are ‘verboten’ in Illinois, unless something drastic happened I wasn’t aware of.

    So, McCloskey could have found himself breaking rocks next to FPS Russia…

      • “SBRs are legal for C&R holders in Illinois”

        Irrelevant, in that case.

        An ‘SBR’ stands for a ‘Short-Barreled Rifle’. While an SBR is an NFA-registered item, it is *not* a silencer, and a silencer is illegal in Illinois.

        {Sound of a Federal prison cell clanging shut on ds…}

        • {Sound of a Federal prison cell clanging shut on ds…}

          {Sound of a Federal prison cell clanging shut on ds…}

          Please be specific on your assertion. Are you suggesting that I, an Illinois resident who holds a FFL03, and possess multiple SBRs on both ATF form 2 and ATF form 4 are in violation of some state or federal law?

        • “Please be specific on your assertion.”

          What does an 03 FFL have to with you? Do you have special privileges that allow you to possess a firearm silencer in the state of Illinois?

          If the answer to that is ‘no’, then you risk the federal prison cell door clanging shut on your ass…

        • you lost me on mcclaskey… that didn’t take place in illinois.
          illinois ffl03 allows for sbs or sbr; god forbid you let it lapse.

        • “you lost me on mcclaskey…”

          I mistakenly thought the Mcclaskey incident happened in Ill….

      • “What does an 03 FFL have to with you? Do you have special privileges that allow you to possess a firearm silencer in the state of Illinois?”

        Never said it did. Initially responded to:

        “NFA items are ‘verboten’ in Illinois, unless something drastic happened I wasn’t aware of.”

        NFA items are restricted not verboten. Any Illinois resident who is not otherwise prohibited may go through the additional step of obtaining a C&R FFL and then transfer or build a SBR. Also, an Illinois resident with a 07 FFL and a SOT may possess a SBR or Silencer.

        Then responded to:

        {Sound of a Federal prison cell clanging shut on ds…}

        Seems the suggestion is that I am somehow at risk of federal prison time. I asked for an explanation of that statement.

        With respect to relevance, the article title and text referenced NFA items.
        And finally with respect to relevance, as pointed out in another post McCloskey was in Missouri not Illinois so the whole “verboten in Illinois” was irrelevant.

        Seems on a site titled “The Truth About Guns” it is appropriate to be factually correct as possible.

        • interesting that there is some convoluted path to silencer ownership in illinois.
          i had c&r for one cycle, let it lapse as most of the czech stuff i wanted was dried up. and my model 37ds is still 18″.

        • “Also, an Illinois resident with a 07 FFL and a SOT may possess a SBR or Silencer.”

          Bingo, that’s your “Special Privileges” I alluded to.

          Since the average Joe doesn’t possess such licenses, my ascertain that having a silencer in Illinois can get your whiney ass thrown in federal prison applies.

          “Seems on a site titled “The Truth About Guns” it is appropriate to be factually correct as possible.”

          I agree, and have proven my point is correct.

          Your pride won’t allow you to recognize that I was right, and you were wrong, Mr. “Special Privileges”.

          It’s simple. Just be a man and own up that I was right.

          My original ascertain was correct, you have your little special privileges that few have in that God-forsaken state… 🙂

    • Geoff PR,

      McCloskey’s home is in St. Louis, Missouri where residents can legally own NFA goodies.

      P.S. What is the html (or whatever you call it) code for making the superscript trademark (TM) appear in this comment section?

      • Ah, OK, for some reason I thought that happened in a Chicago, Illinois area gated community…

        • look at all the trouble you’ve caused.
          malort penalty shot.
          genuine malort ad lines:
          “what soap washes it’s mouth out with.”
          “these pants aren’t going to sh1t themselves.”
          “tonights the night you fight your dad.”

        • “look at all the trouble you’ve caused.”

          It seems to follow me, for some reason. 🙂

          “malort penalty shot.”

          I might be up your way later this year or early next, I’ll buy you a shot.

          …or 9… 🙂

    • Still waiting for explanation as to how I was wrong. Be glad admit it if shown anything incorrect about what I stated.

      I stated that a non-prohibited person in Illinois with a C&R may possess a SBR. That was factually correct

      I responded to assertion I was subject to federal incarnation for possession of a SBR. That assertion was factually incorrect.

      Under the logic presented, all firearms, ammunition, certain air guns, automatic knives (switch blades) and stun guns are “verboten” in Illinois because an Illinois resident is required to obtain a FOID-Firearm Owners Identification Card to legally possess any of the foregoing.

      Any Illinois resident who can pass a Form 2 or Form 4 background check may obtain a C&R and thereby own a SBR.

      Any Illinois resident who has a 07 with a SOT may possess a Suppressor.

      Demonstrate where anything in the foregoing is incorrect and I will be glad to acknowledge my error.

      Conversely, explain how the statement,

      “NFA items are ‘verboten’ in Illinois, unless something drastic happened I wasn’t aware of.”

      is factually correct. Perhaps something happened you were not aware of. As I have demonstrated, Illinois residents may possess certain NFA items by meeting certain requirements just as they are required to meet certain requirements to possess non NFA firearms and/or ammunition.

  5. Can a firearm with a suppressor more-kill someone than without one? Not sure I understand the McCloskey argument, either.

    • Colonel Travis,

      Many people are concerned that an overzealous prosecutor would point to your NFA item as indicating that you are a fringe person (e.g. “gun nut”) who was “looking to shoot someone” or some such nonsense.

      • I think the more important angle is that the local anti-2A DA might sic the feds on you.

        • “…the local anti-2A DA might sic the feds on you.”

          And, that’s the ‘crux of the biscuit’, according to the late Frank Zappa.

          Know the legal ‘lay of the land’ in *your* particular jurisdiction… 🙁

      • Right, I understand them making such an argument.
        Such an argument is horrible and any competent attorney could dismantle this nonsense.

        On the other hand, I also know that not enough defense attorneys know or care about firearms, suppressors, self-defense law, etc. Juries on the whole know even less.

        The amount of stupid in this country is staggering and it does not bode well for the good guys.

        • Methinks you are missing the point.

          Imagine if Zimmerman had had a can on his weapon.

          Obama admin (which desperately wanted to go after Zimmerman, but had no legal basis to do so) would have been able to go after him on federal charges, claiming it was a “crime of violence” committed with an NFA weapon (and the “crime of violence” could be argued to have been just aggravated assault).

          No “stand your ground defense,” and the full resources of DoJ being brought to bear.

          Very easy case for the feds, and 30 year sentence if they make it.

  6. On the flip side, if you had some amazing stockpile of tactical firearms but instead grabbed a single-shot .410 or .22 bolt action to shoot your assailant with, the prosecutor could argue that you didn’t really fear for your life so it was a bad shoot.

    Haters will hate no matter what you choose. Do whatever keeps you alive and let the lawyers sort it out.

  7. The McCloskeys ‘waiving’ their guns around went out the window when the Rittenhouse prosecutor ‘waived’ an AR15 around pointing it at the jury.

    Defense of the home is the absolute perfect place to use a suppressor. These things are not toys. If they can’t actually be used the why would the government even bother having them on the NFA list?

    But let’s be honest about this. The only reason this is even a question in the first place is for being on the NFA. This is a good reason to remove suppressors from it.

  8. if the jury /jurors already have it in mind that you are guilty orrr innocent there it is

    but yes. you will be “considered” more guilty

    b/c the agenda is to stop the good people

    even some “good” people would vote guilty for different reasons

    b/c many think you are blood thristy and dont want their neighbors etc to attack them for voting innocent

  9. I don’t underestimate the problem. Bad guy in my home. Adress the problem with whatever is handy.

    • Gee, did the cops responding to the shots fired call have mufflers on their police cruiser??
      Just as big of a (non-factor) concern, right ?

  10. Seems to me that this is an issue that ought to be taken up in Federal courts on Constitutional grounds post-Bruen.

    Imagine that Congress were to pass a law forbidding shooting an assailant with a bullet that was “in or affecting interstate commerce”.

    So, now, you have a perfectly “good shoot” in state court, but the Feds pursue you on a charge of shooting him with a bullet “in or affecting interstate commerce”. They honor your right to keep an arm. To bear the arm. But you actually USED an article of interstate commerce in self-defense! Would such a law be constitutional?

    The foregoing scenario is not distinguishable from using a gun-barrel or a silencer that was “in or affecting interstate commerce”.

    That it was an NFA’34 item, or a GCA’68, or an exempt antique or replica does not seem to matter. What seems to be at issue is that Congress has passed a law bootstrapping a common law state crime into a federal crime based on a Commerce Clause pretext. And, having done it once for NFA weapons, it could do so for GCA and exempt weapons as well.

    The guy is either dead, wounded or in fear of his life. This is the real crime, isn’t it? And that crime is clearly within the police power of the states (assuming that the guy killed/wounded/frightened wasn’t a federal employee). Or, it’s not a crime at all because it was a good-shoot. So, it seems that Congress in any such case is nullifying the 2A right to arms for self-defense on a Commerce Clause pretext.

    I will concede that almost all guns cross state lines. And so, it is Constitutional for Congress to regulate interstate gun dealing. But, beyond the moment of sale, when the gun is being kept, borne or used, I don’t see Federal jurisdiction.

    Here, I’m assuming that lawful taxes were paid. If the $200 transfer tax on an NFA item has been paid and the ~10% tax on the ammunition or non-NFA gun was paid, then there is no longer a basis for federal jurisdiction.

    The overarching issue since June 2022 is: What will governments do to overcome Bruen’s text, history and tradition test?

    And, then, what are we the PotG going to do to thwart governments defying Bruen?

    Very nearly none of us is going to face a Federal charge for using a silencer or SBR in self-defense. But there is the risk; and it’s been called to our attention. We have a choice:
    1. – start to deal with this actual issue regarding NFA weapons; or,
    2. – wait until Congress (or some state) decides to pass a law imposing a penalty for using a gun in self-defense (such as the bullet example above).

    It seems to me that now, with respect to #1, is the time to act.

    • {Taking legal action}

      “It seems to me that now, with respect to #1, is the time to act.”

      That’s actually a persuasive argument.

      The post ‘Bruen’ firearm legal landscape is brand-new territory, and ripe for exploitation by the intrepid pro-2A legal team.

      Like legal precedent-setting gains… 🙂

    • You have swallowed the VERY faulty reasoning that has purported to make items that have, did, might, could have, or did not move cross any state line somehow more illegal than if I’d made it in my own backyard out of metal I processed from ore I obtained from my own property and kept it inside my state, and that no tool made in any other state was used in the making of that item. Oh wait, since I got a drill bit made in MY state, the bit did not move in interstate commerce, but by buying THAT bit I rejected a different bit that was made two states over and thus have “violated” the Interstate Commerce Clause.

      Poppycock, stuff, and nonsense.
      That assignment of authority to the COngress was not to hobble and micromanage and restrict. READ the text of that clause. It means, in the understanding of THAT time when it was written, to make regular, to make to function the way it is supposed or designed to function. For interstate commerce that means to allow products/services to move freely amongst the several states. It commands government to remove barriers and blockages to trade amongst the several states.
      That case, Filburn, that “established” this twisted “thinking” was even more bogus than the one got dumped in Bruen..

      • I cannot say that I disagree, because it is of enormous benefit to maintain a consistent interpretation of the language of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and related founding documents. I can say that this would be a huge can of worms to untangle, resulting in the rewriting of reams of legislation and regulation, not to mention the enrichment of untold thousands of lawyers.

  11. 12 > 6.
    If it’s legally owned, why would it matter if it was a baseball bat, or an SBR or suppressor? Either it’s justified or not. Rogue prosecutor (see case against K. Rittenhouse) is going to make whatever argument they can and hope it sticks.

    Same argument has been made that a prosecutor might try to make the case that use of reloaded ammo indicates premeditation. Sure, it’s an argument. It doesn’t mean the jury will buy it. Remember, the process is the punishment.

    We’ve seen the studies on conceal carry licensees being amongst the most law-abiding. How about those with NFA, or even better, CCL + NFA????

    • Because things under the NFA are considered some way or another moreextraordinary lethal. Its the reason the NFA was created way back when, because criminals started using machine guns and they were considered more extraordinary lethal.

  12. In the ’80s a rep for H&K shot and killed some bikers with a select fire Ruger AC 556. He shot them on Full Auto. The guy was kind of unusual in that he was 6 ft 8. The bikers chased him for 22 miles down back roads before they were able to force a confrontation. Ironically enough one of the bikers last words was f*** your high-powered rifle. A moment later he took a burst across the chest. The HK rep was charged and tried for murder and was acquitted.

    • He should have been awarded a medal (even though and HK rep was likely an insufferably arrogant ass.)

  13. A supressor is a firearm under the NFA. So just beat the bad guy down with the supressor and you’re good to go 😁

  14. what armed white people should not be worried about:
    multiple armed or unarmed males of any race or ethnicity kicking down their front door at 2 am
    what should scare them all to death:
    one single unarmed black male kicking down their front door at 2am

  15. This is such BS. Following that logic, we’re supposed to worry about what a particular firearm is capable of doing to some hopped up home invader(s)? Horse radish. I keep a semi-auto 12 gauge loaded with a mix of slugs and 00buck for home defense. It carries 15+1, and is banned in a few blue states. I’ll use it as I want and the rest of the world can KMA.

  16. I would say not more legal trouble because if you lawfully have an NFA item, like my Trash Panda silencer, they know you’ve stepped up and gone through the hoops to get it.
    What it’s going to do is piss off the person who loses his NFA item because its sitting in a police property room forever and ever. I know if I used my AR15 300 blk pistol that I built with expensive everything including a Lantac enhanced BCG and it was seized, it would really REALLY tick me off.
    You’d almost rather use a rock instead of your prized NFA equipped firearm. Who cares about a rock.

  17. Sturm, Ruger & Co. would like to thank TTAG for this ringing endorsement of the GP100.

    • The GP100 is a solid firearm, perfect for reliable self-defense usage.

      (The svelte LCR in .357 currently residing in my pocket feels a bit inadequate compared to the testosterone-laden beefy heft of the GP100… 😉 )

  18. When asked by the proisecutor WHY I chose to pick up the suppredded handgun when the dumkopfs busted through the frint door I would simply respond “because I value the hearing of all those who dwell under MY roof, and prefer to make use of the device designed to reduce the dmaging sounds created by rounds being discharged in a tightly enclosed space such as my HOME. I have others, incliuding pets, I would prefer not to harm by the VERY high sound pressures involved in such an event.
    I also do not want to add any delay whatever in responding, such as finding and putting on my earmuffs would cause.
    Thus my choice of the suppressed weapon I can fire that firearm indoors without losing my hearing even temporarily, a critical advantage when in such a situation.

  19. …what if it’s a home-made silencer? No one but the owner knows it exists, and *certainly* no stupid taxes were paid or paperwork filed.

    3-D printing makes this a relevant, real-world question…

    • Well they can’t force you to come forward and register it, because that would be self-incrimination. The tax issue might complicate things a bit, though.

      If it was registered to you with tax stamp, and law enforcement takes it into evidence, but doesn’t register it or pay the tax, would that be an unlawful transfer?

      • @Publius

        “Well they can’t force you to come forward and register it, because that would be self-incrimination. The tax issue might complicate things a bit, though.”

        That’s why its a tax and not a ‘fee’. Under federal tax law its different, not paying a federal tax ‘when it is due’ is automatically incriminating and an arrest-able and ‘property’ sizable offense unless the tax payment was ‘forgiven’ or not required or deferred.

        That’s why Biden wants to place all firearms under NFA including those that would have been owned prior to placing them under NFA – if he were to have his way. The second such would become law every firearm owned before it became law would become subject to the tax and due immediately the way the NFA is written, thus the owners incurring a tax instead of it being levied (the NFA only levies the tax at sale or transfer but makes all under NFA subject to the tax even if not sale or transfer) which makes the firearms owners automatically ‘arrest-able felons’ and the firearms sizable, so they take them or you surrender them or else go to jail and become felon. It would go into ‘tax court’ and in ‘tax court’ the fact the tax was not paid ‘when due’ is all the evidence a federal prosecutor needs to prosecute you.

        The U.S. has a separate court system for tax matters. In tax court its a completely different court world where simply not paying the tax ‘when due’ can mean a conviction and you can become subject to criminal penalties automatically. Its a place where if you can not prove you did not owe the tax you get convicted, the burden is not on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and its on you to prove you did not owe the tax – there aren’t any of the normal ‘constitutional’ protections applied like they are in normal criminal court. Tax court has its own ‘Rules of Practice and Procedure’ that operate outside the normal court system, it is basically its own Supreme Court system.

        You do not want to go to tax court, believe me, I’ve been there. I was able to prove I did not owe the tax and it was an error but even though it was a very obvious error anyone that can add 2 + 2 could see the judge basically said right off the bat either prove it now or go to jail. They do not mess around with ‘reasonable doubt’ and ‘government burden to prove’ much in tax court.

        • Now you know why Biden wanted to hire, train, and arm ~15,000 IRS agents. Biden is going to try to place all firearms under NFA, those IRS agents would be doing the confiscating (with the FBI and ATF help probably), and it would go into tax court where a person can not prove they did not owe the NFA tax because they did the moment those firearms became subject to the NFA. Biden basically wants to establish another ‘law enforcement’ agency by hiring those IRS agents.

          The precedent for this was set back in the 1930’s with the ‘tax evasion’ conviction of Al Capone, that the government could confiscate ‘property and monies’ in lieu of letting the tax be paid. Its the ‘Al Capone’ government exploitable loophole in tax law.

  20. If someone gets shot at my house, I’ll make sure the high point $100 bill hydrodip is in my holster and recently fired when they get here. I guess If it’s shotgun (which is most likely) they can have my very well worn maverick which is likely the gun I used anyhow.

  21. The argument makes no sense.

    If it’s a bad shoot or the DA convinces a jury it’s a bad shoot, or just thinks it’s a bad shoot and presses charges against you and you prevail, you’re already as boned as you’re going to get.

    Could you get a DA that’s a rabid fucktard and goes after you for a perfectly good shoot where you used an NFA item? Sure, but you’re already fucked anyway. It’s not like they were going to leave you alone. The problem is political and stems from the gun itself not from the accessories attached to it or the type of gun.

    “You could expose yourself to legal liability”. Uh, yeah, with nearly everything you do which is why we should disbar and exile 95% of lawyers with a random lottery selection process.

    • I’m with MLee and strych9 on this one. My suppressor is going to jail for awhile, and there’s a chance I may also, regardless of righteousness. Do your best to avoid the possibility, but if it becomes unavoidable, do good work, and be prepared for the fallout .

  22. “…Imagine if you are in a Rittenhouse/Zimmerman self defense shooting…”

    Seems like the juice isn’t worth the squeeze on an NFA weapon there.

    Home defense… different issue…

  23. A defensive gun use is either justified or it’s not justified. It doesn’t matter what gun you use if your life is in danger. It doesn’t matter if you’re jay walking at the time.

  25. Obviously, the guy arguing against using the suppressor has never fired unsuppressed indoors without hearing protection! Firing an unsuppressed 10.5″ AR in a hallway would be probably liquify your brain anyway (exaggeration for your sensitive types.) Still the point is shooting indoors would be vicious.

  26. Legally, it doesn’t matter. What does matter is whether the threat you faced justified defense with deadly force. If it did, a highly modified gun is equals a stock gun equals a baseball bat. A felon, prohibited from possessing a firearm, would not be guilty of murder or attempted murder if he defended himself a full auto weapon. What he would be guilty of is possessing that weapon unless it was lying around and he picked it up only to defend himself.

    In reality, if the prosecutor is hostile to self defense, he will use the gun’s modifications to persuade a gullible jury that they changed your actions from self defense to murder. That’s why it is usually recommended that you not make modifications like lightened triggers or cute labels.

  27. They used to say the same crap about hollowpoints.

    And then about handloads.

    Bottom line is if you have a questionable situation and/or a commie prosecutor they will use anything and everything they can against you. The punisher skull on your pickup truck or that confederate flag tattoo that was so cool when you were 18 or that off color joke you posted on facebook will be trotted out just like your suppressed SBR.

    If you have a clearly good shoot and/or a decent prosecutor none of that will make any difference.

    Did the person positing this issue have any examples of cases in which this had happened? If any such cases exist, would they have actually been different had the offending item not been used?

    • most automatic weapons ares so valuable they need to be locked away somewhere…but keeping one loaded and handy isn’t such a bad idea…and most who have them tend to think along those lines…

  28. Suppressors are one thing, but what about other NFA items?
    Lets say I owned a full auto Tommy Gun or M16, had it out and had finished cleaning it when someone bursts through the door. Somehow I manage to get a loaded magazine into the gun in time and switch it to full auto- not realizing it until I pull the trigger- and shoot and killed them without missing a shot(probably the most important part in this case). What kind of trouble, if any, would one be in in that instance given it was a clear cut case of self defense?

  29. Just like a replacement trigger or a magazine extension or any other “modification” to your firearm: they’re fine to use, just be prepared to articulate what they actually do and why you use them in court. Mas Ayoob has talked about modifications in DGUs before.

  30. Introducing Indian SMM Panel, your gateway to unlocking the immense potential of social media marketing in the Indian market. With our panel, tailored specifically for India, you can harness the power of social media to reach a vast audience, build your brand, and drive meaningful engagement. Our services include likes, followers, comments, and more, all carefully crafted to cater to the unique needs of businesses and influencers in India.

Comments are closed.