Suppressor use for home defense.

WoofersInc · Post by **WoofersInc** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:43 pm

Ok. I've gotten into it with someone on another board twice now about using a suppressor on a home defense gun. He is one of those "if it's a good shoot, it's a good shoot" type of person. I don't think using one would be a good idea. Here is why

A legally owned suppressor has never been used in a self defense shooting. That means that the first person to do so would be making a new case law precedent. Since this would be a precedent setting case, there are a lot of DA's who would jump at this case to try and further their career. Also since there is no case law to back up your position it would be anybodies guess as to what the jury would do. Since we all know what most non gun people think about suppressors, And guess who will be on that jury, I don't feel that it would be worth it. Yes I might win, but I don't have the financial resources or time to be the "test' case for this.

So what are your guys opinion on this?

Deathray · Post by **Deathray** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:48 pm

In Arizona, you cannot be sued civilly if you are found to have acted in accordance to the law.

I lost enough hearing using unsuppressed weapons in the sandbox, I'm not going to go more deaf dispatching a scumbag thief. My AR is my home defense weapon, and it has a can on the end of it.

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:50 pm

I value my hearing.

ick · Post by **ick** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:01 pm

WoofersInc wrote: A legally owned suppressor has never been used in a self defense shooting.

Exactly. I can see some $200/hour ambulance chaser attorney representing the criminal I shot asking me on the stand

"So you have a silencer on the weapon you used to cripple my client? In your opinion Mr. Ick, isn't that a ninja weapon? So is it true that you used a ninja weapon to cripple an unarmed helpless man that was just trying to feed his family?"

No thanks. Unfortunately I am going to have to tolerate damage to my hearing to avoid said peril.

GoJohnnyGo · Post by **GoJohnnyGo** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:16 pm

I only use weapons that I wouldn't mind losing for home defense. A mossberg 590 and a Ruger gp100. Both are easy to replace and super reliable (IMHO). If somebody breaks into my house in the middle of the day and ganks these then I'm not out an NFA item or two. If somebody breaks into my house in the middle of the night, well I've got more important things to worry about than the db level of the gunshot I'm about to hear. To me, situational risk managment says that NFA for practical defense is not worth it. But, with that said, a mans house is his castle and what he does in his castle is his own GD buisness.

Chondro · Post by **Chondro** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:48 pm

I value my home more than I do my hearing..If deer hunters can go out and shoot a deer or two every year with a center fire rifle with no hearing protection I'm sure I could get away with a shot off in the house from a pistol once in my lifetime.

If someone forcefully breaks into your house that you don't know and are forced into a shooting you most likely will never see the inside of a court house..If you have a can on you most likely gonna be in a trial and even if found not guilty still gonna spend 50 grand or more..The more resources you have the more it will cost..

Will a defense shooting in the house with a can change any of the current laws with silencers? Nope..

Let the guy do what he wants and when hes paying 300 bucks an hour to an attorney then ask him if it was worth it..

As much as I despise Glocks they are good for one thing..They go bang when you need them to and do so with out a hiccup..No threaded barrel..Just a baby .40..That held up in front of a jury woudn't draw the attention..

Holding up a firearm with a can on it? You were asking for it..Even people that carry on that jury are gonna have second doubts about you..
It will be super fun in the civil trial brought fourth by the family of said scumbag..

Next time you see someone that was involved in shooting ask them if they ever even heard a shot..Adrenaline and tunnel vision can do amazing things..

What is legal or not really shouldn't matter for this debate. Wonder how the police feel that were involved in the Hollywood shootout feel today? Nothing like getting sued after being shot at for half an hour by full auto fire..

With that said take off the can and put it away before you call the police..

Fireman1291 · Post by **Fireman1291** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:04 pm

Ok, lets see. Why do they need to know that you used a suppressor?

K, response times in my area even on a home envasion will be 5min or more. Lets take a G19 as an example. G19+LWD barrel+suppressor...pop..pop..BG down..take off suppressor, install stock glock barrel, put up suppressor and threaded barrel. With a HP round it will be expanded when pulled from the body, possibly fragged, in a clean shoot nothing will happen. But if the case is put under a microscope, they can tell the rifling marks are there from a standard land/groove barrel(LWD) and not a glock polygonal barrel. That and you have to have a dirty barrel shot last with the same defense rounds...Not to mention the casings will be dirtier than normal and the LWD fully supported barrel wont let the 9mm casing expand as much as the stock barrel.

But in FL if you have a home invasion, yu can blow the Fing hell outta the intruder and not even be taken in for questioning. Our "stand your ground law" and "castle doctrine" rock.

Dead men tell no tales, that and Ill grab my shotgun anyway so my hearing is fucked.
lol

504ranger · Post by **504ranger** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:17 pm

I agree with no. Regardless if I feel that it's a good shoot or not you can almost guarantee that your case will make it before a judge and having to defend myself in front of a buch of people as to why I had a suppressor (remember the public's opinion, which has been skewed by movies and tv, on suppressor ownership, uses, etc is very different than ours). Even in the military some commanders don't understand them and consider them assasin's tools. Like stated before some hot shot attorney will say that I put it on so the guy never heard the shots rather than giving him the chance of surrendering, etc. No thanks. As for the hearing loss justification I doubt the 3-4 death pills launched at the asshole (at this point in your career) will make any difference unless you plan on going cyclic with FA fire

.
Not to mention the weapon involved is also confiscated and maybe you get it back somewhere down the line so your can will be gone too.
Not worth it IMHO.

dtom29 · Post by **dtom29** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:53 pm

If it's a good shoot, it's a good shoot...Your assumption that it has never happened is based on what? The fact that there is no case law (that you know of) doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means two things...Could have happened with no charges filed, or you haven't heard about it. I'm willing to take the hit for case law. I have good attorney friends (that I HAVE used for Aggravated assault/reckless endangerment charges...all dismissed.) and good self defense laws. I own the suppressor legally, I'm in my home, they weren't supposed to be there.

<Mach1 · Post by **<Mach1** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Concept is great & the topic see's much debate but in reality it's not sensible for instantaneous cqb.
Ever try coming around a corner with longer than a snub nose when your assailant is right there? Your going to bonk 'em on the head if you draw down & if you push out it could very well be under an arm or stuck in a non vital area. The shorter your weapon is, the better chance you have for a take down.

Personal defense is about survivability. Hearing & law's are secondary.

504ranger · Post by **504ranger** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:04 pm

My concern would be that while I feel that it is a good shoot (and it probably is) unfortunately it's not up to me to decide if it goes to trial. We all see the horror stories posted on here about LEOs and the public that have no idea the suppressor ownership is even legal so why add the possibility of it going to trial. Yeah I may have an attorney but I still have to pay that attorney. If it does go to trial good luck convincing a juryof the merits of signature reduction as it applies to a CQB scenario.

garandman · Post by **garandman** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:18 pm

WoofersInc wrote:
A legally owned suppressor has never been used in a self defense shooting. That means that the first person to do so would be making a new case law precedent. Since this would be a precedent setting case, there are a lot of DA's who would jump at this case to try and further their career. Also since there is no case law to back up your position it would be anybodies guess as to what the jury would do. Since we all know what most non gun people think about suppressors, And guess who will be on that jury, I don't feel that it would be worth it. Yes I might win, but I don't have the financial resources or time to be the "test' case for this.

So what are your guys opinion on this?

You've given a rational, plausible, well articulated position.

Unfortunately, this is the internet.

Expect it to be roundly rejected and ridiculed.

Black · Post by **Black** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:06 pm

If your suppressor is on the weapon at the time of the shooting, I don't think you'd have a problem... but this really depends on your location/state.

In Montana, I highly doubt I'd have any issues if it happened to me.

If you took the time to put the suppressor on while the guy was rummaging in your house, that might be a different story.

I can understand why you would want to use it. I've thought about it. I'd rather eliminate the threat without my neighbors freaking out after they heard the shots, so I could call the police first and handle it.

WoofersInc · Post by **WoofersInc** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:20 pm

If it's a good shoot, it's a good shoot...Your assumption that it has never happened is based on what? The fact that there is no case law (that you know of) doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means two things...Could have happened with no charges filed, or you haven't heard about it.

I got the fact that there are no cases of a suppressor being used from Massad Ayoob. He has stated that there are not any cases of a legally owned suppressor being used in self defense.

He did go on to say that every case of a NFA item being used in self defense has gone to a Grand Jury at a minimum. Like I said. I don't have the money to be the test case for this.

ThePatriot · Post by **ThePatriot** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:40 pm

Uh... no. I would rather damage my hearing than have my favorite weapon taken away and have to deal with legal consequences based on the fear and ignorance of others who would hold my life in their hands. Most people don't know silencers are legal and even if they do they think they are only for hitmen and other violent people. I will stick with my 870.

Pinhead · Post by **Pinhead** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:09 pm

I vote NO because if it were to come down to a shoot-out my neighbors are more likely to call the cops for help than if they thought they heard a pellet gun. I'm a good shot but the asshole will be looking/more ready than me.

Pinhead · Post by **Pinhead** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:09 pm

I vote NO because if it were to come down to a shoot-out my neighbors are more likely to call the cops for help than if they thought they heard a pellet gun. I'm a good shot but the asshole will be looking/more ready than me.

Artful · Post by **Artful** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:40 pm

Depends upon situation - I voted Yes - as I wouild use it to my advantage in certain situations - I don't regularly keep a suppressed gun out but do keep 870 pump in "tactical" configuration (3 gun set up with extended mag and extra ammo and surefire foreend).

Crosshair · Post by **Crosshair** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:57 pm

If it's a good shoot I will have nothing to worry about.

shooting systems · Post by **shooting systems** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:21 pm

I voted yes. My primary concern is the degradation of my hearing during and immediately after the confrontation until back up and or the police arrive. There may be more intruders scurrying about, hiding, etc and could still launch an attack. Just look at the obvious tactical applications of the suppressor and you will have your answers. If it gives you the tactical advantage, use it so you can survive and sort it out later.

okent · Post by **okent** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:46 pm

Yes for me.
I have shot a handgun and rifle in a hallway/confined space.
I will deal with the consequences after the shooting is over, don't want to give up any advantage in the fight and that includes my hearing after the first shot.
If that makes me a test case then so be it, I want to live and will take every edge I can get. My money won't do me any good if I am dead.

Lindenwood · Post by **Lindenwood** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:37 pm

Finally, somebody said it! The main advantage is not protecting your hearing 20 years down the road. It is protecting your hearing that half minute after the first shot or two! With your ears ringing and your head pounding, it is going to be hard hearing the BG's partner bump into a table in the living room, or your wife or kid screaming a few rooms down behind a closed door.

If I had a suppressor, I'd use it.

YugoRPK · Post by **YugoRPK** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:49 pm

I'd use one and I'd probably get charged with a gross misdemeanor. Boo Fucking Hoo.

-k- · Post by **-k-** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:19 pm

After reading this thread I have decided to use an old rusty musket as my HD weapon, I'm not sure if it will even fire but it sure will look good in front of the jury...

Omega_556 · Post by **Omega_556** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:33 pm

-k- wrote:After reading this thread I have decided to use an old rusty musket as my HD weapon, I'm not sure if it will even fire but it sure will look good in front of the jury...

That is funny.

I find it hilarious when people are afraid to use "their baby" to defend themselves because it will be taken as evidence. It is that exact mentality that shows the anti-gun movement is winning and these gun owners are self imposing political correctness in firearms selection upon themselves...

Me, I'll use the best tool for the job and that is a suppressed AR SBR, it just so happens to be a Noveske N4 10.5...

Todd, you guys made great carbines, keep up the good work.

Suppressor use for home defense.

Use a suppressor for Home Defense

Suppressor use for home defense.

Re: Suppressor use for home defense.

Re: Suppressor use for home defense.