Suppressed Weapons for Home and Auto

penguin6 · Post by **penguin6** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:23 am

It was suggested to me by a suppressor manufacturer that using a suppressed weapon in your home or auto for defensive purposes could cause legal problems, e.g., paint you as an evil ninja-type in court. Enclosed areas seem to be where they would be most useful, especially for someone like me who already has hearing damage. A rifle shot or possibly even a pistol shot indoors could cause further problems. Anyone have any experience or insight into this?

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:44 am

I think the consensus was that if you used a can to defend yourself in the home it would be prudent to remove said can and lock it in the safe before the cops got there. Legally you could be cleared but I don't think I would want to sit around in court for an extra week defending myself against an excessive use of force charge. My .02

penguin6 · Post by **penguin6** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:03 am

You said "consensus was." Has this already been discussed somewhere?

PTK · Post by **PTK** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:48 am

If you remove the silencer and lock it up and don't disclose the use of said silencer, you've just tampered with evidence. Doesn't matter if it was a clean shoot before that, you'll be crucified for tampering.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:10 am

Yes, it has been discussed but unless you go through the old threads one by one you probably won't find it, the search function is not very specific.

Yes, it is tampering but if one guy is dead and you're the only one there, I would rather take my chance removing said device and letting them prove I used it than to intentionally throw myself under the bus.

Then there is the other issue of using a using an intergally supressed gun for home defense, in that situation you are pretty much screwed.

ctdonath · Post by **ctdonath** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:20 am

Messing with crime-scene evidence for an otherwise good shoot is a galactically stupid idea. When (not if) found, far more questions get raised than need be.

There's nothing wrong with using a suppressor at home. There's nothing wrong with using suitable tools to preserve hearing.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:35 am

I think it would be hard to prove you removed it and stored it after you shot. Although legal, it would depend on how a prosecutor would look at it and how long the can would be tied up in a store room for "evidence". I know the simple fact of having the papers and being legal but how many states have had presidents set protecting scum bags from excessive use of force.

If it was me, I would just use something not canned and worry about a little ringing later.

ctdonath · Post by **ctdonath** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:53 am

You: have 10 seconds to decide what to do to alter your crime scene - and for no very good reason.
They: have months for a team of long-term professionals with unlimited funds to analyze what happened based on centuries of mutual experience.

What the hell is the point of hiding the suppressor? They'll figure it out, and you'll have a far harder time trying to explain why you fucked with a crime scene than saying "firing a rifle indoors is bad for my family's ears so I put a can on it".

protecting scum bags from excessive use of force.

It's a sound reducer, not a caliber reducer. Yeesh. There's no reduction in "force", only noise.

ctdonath · Post by **ctdonath** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:04 am

I think it would be hard to prove you removed it and stored it after you shot.

Well, starting with the THREADED BARREL, they might just want to see the can ... and feel it's still warm, and still stinks. Here YOU are getting twitchy (remember, they are professional lie detectors) when they start asking about the can that's not there but obviously intended to be, you're plainly not telling 'em something, and now you're on their s--t list because it's abundantly clear you're not telling them something.

This in contrast with: the fact that you ARE a Class III owner who went through thorough background checks, left the crime scene as-is, and give them a matter-of-fact "well yeah I don't want to shoot an unsuppressed firearm indoors", there is nothing for them to get uptight about.

DON'T F--k WITH CRIME SCENES.

deth502 · Post by **deth502** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:47 am

ok, just a little semantic clarification here.

"crime scene"

if the shooting was justified, as the perpetrator was breaking into your home and you were in fear for your life and the lives of your loved ones, the scene, wouldnt be, imo a "crime scene" as much as an "incident scene".

unless you are considering the act of the perpetrator breaking in as the "crime"

ctdonath · Post by **ctdonath** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:56 am

Homicide is a crime, with exceptions. Ergo, the "incident scene" starts out as a "crime scene" until demonstrated that an exception occurred.

To go a step farther: if there wasn't a crime underway, you had no business shooting the guy.

Diomed · Post by **Diomed** » Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:43 am

Carl's already hit the high points. Be aware of your local politcal situation and don't be stupid.

Telperion · Post by **Telperion** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:45 pm

Here YOU are getting twitchy (remember, they are professional lie detectors) when they start asking about the can that's not there but obviously intended to be, you're plainly not telling 'em something, and now you're on their s--t list because it's abundantly clear you're not telling them something.

Point of order: you shouldn't be talking to them at all, until you've consulted counsel.

Broadway · Post by **Broadway** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:27 pm

Telperion wrote:
Here YOU are getting twitchy (remember, they are professional lie detectors) when they start asking about the can that's not there but obviously intended to be, you're plainly not telling 'em something, and now you're on their s--t list because it's abundantly clear you're not telling them something.
Point of order: you shouldn't be talking to them at all, until you've consulted counsel.

This is almost correct. First you need to express that you were in imminent fear for your Life and or that of a loved one. Two - You need to demand that the person who attacked you be arrested (even if he/she/them is lying stone cold dead). You are not a coroner and guilty people go to jail. Finally - you wish to speak to your attorney before making any further statements. Three short sweet sentences and no more. Now you shut your mouth and don't say another word until you have spoken to your attorney.

And for God's sake do not under any conditions tamper with the firearm or scene as has been suggested. A good shoot is just that, don't change it. Believe me if this happen to you the timetable on getting your NFA "Toy" back will be the least of your concerns.

ctdonath · Post by **ctdonath** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:00 am

One more point: you promptly inform the cops of all evidence. That includes the gun you shot the guy with, AND the suppressor if used.

Cops are professional lie detectors. They'll know if you're trying to pull something. They know the difference between "I want my lawyer (so I don't say something stupid)" vs "I want my lawyer (because I'm trying to hide part of the weapon used)".

RictusGrin · Post by **RictusGrin** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:02 am

ctdonath wrote:One more point: you promptly inform the cops of all evidence. That includes the gun you shot the guy with, AND the suppressor if used.

Cops are professional lie detectors. They'll know if you're trying to pull something. They know the difference between "I want my lawyer (so I don't say something stupid)" vs "I want my lawyer (because I'm trying to hide part of the weapon used)".

I wouldn't speak to the cops about anything. Also, I'm not concerned with their assumptions concerning my motivations. When a cop's "gut feeling lie detector" is going off, the last thing I want to do is give him information on the record that he can use to prove his feeling correct through some warped inductive logic, as opposed to using said information in a deductive fashion.

Nothing good can come from speaking to the cops, as even exculpatory information you divulge to them is not admissible in court since it is classified as hearsay. Also, anything you say is subject to the cop's memory of your statement, and we know how memory works. Or we should.

This requires you to invest some time, but this thread has links to some excellent video regarding the dangers of speaking to the police.
viewtopic.php?t=26056

700PSS · Post by **700PSS** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:29 pm

[quote="700PSS"]If youâ€™re near Atlanta, Ayoob recommends:
Drew Findling
http://www.findlinglawfirm.com/

Ayoobâ€™s self-defense incident response:

1. â€œOfficer, that man attacked me.â€

Broadway · Post by **Broadway** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:26 pm

RictusGrin wrote:
ctdonath wrote:One more point: you promptly inform the cops of all evidence. That includes the gun you shot the guy with, AND the suppressor if used.

Cops are professional lie detectors. They'll know if you're trying to pull something. They know the difference between "I want my lawyer (so I don't say something stupid)" vs "I want my lawyer (because I'm trying to hide part of the weapon used)".
I wouldn't speak to the cops about anything. Also, I'm not concerned with their assumptions concerning my motivations. When a cop's "gut feeling lie detector" is going off, the last thing I want to do is give him information on the record that he can use to prove his feeling correct through some warped inductive logic, as opposed to using said information in a deductive fashion.

Nothing good can come from speaking to the cops, as even exculpatory information you divulge to them is not admissible in court since it is classified as hearsay. Also, anything you say is subject to the cop's memory of your statement, and we know how memory works. Or we should.

This requires you to invest some time, but this thread has links to some excellent video regarding the dangers of speaking to the police.
viewtopic.php?t=26056

A case like this is going to a Grand Jury every single time. Your actions and what you say are vital. If you make yourself look guilty then expect to end up in a lengthy, expensive, life altering trial as opposed to it simply being dismissed of at a Grand Jury level. There are numerous experts with vast experience like that quoted above that advise exactly what to do. I don't claim to be an "expert". I do have several years supervisory investigative experience in this area though and have been through dozens of these types of investigations, so take that for what it's worth. No one is suggesting answering questions, but simply as stated, say exactly what was scripted and shut up. It's your call.

ottosear · Post by **ottosear** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:33 pm

If the can is mounted on the gun. And the gun is the first one in the safe. And it would take time to remove it. Your defense is ....I didn't have time to remove it.

st33ve0 · Post by **st33ve0** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:12 pm

My question is what happens if one of my family members uses one of my NFA weapons to defend themselves? Are they royally screwed because it was not their weapon and not their registered NFA item?

Diomed · Post by **Diomed** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:51 am

st33ve0 wrote:My question is what happens if one of my family members uses one of my NFA weapons to defend themselves? Are they royally screwed because it was not their weapon and not their registered NFA item?

Were you present when they defended themselves? If you're there with them, you can probably avoid problems on that front ("I just handed my wife the first gun I came to in the safe, officer").

If they use it and you're in another state at the time, you and them are gonna have some rough times.

st33ve0 · Post by **st33ve0** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:00 am

Diomed wrote:
st33ve0 wrote:My question is what happens if one of my family members uses one of my NFA weapons to defend themselves? Are they royally screwed because it was not their weapon and not their registered NFA item?
Were you present when they defended themselves? If you're there with them, you can probably avoid problems on that front ("I just handed my wife the first gun I came to in the safe, officer").

If they use it and you're in another state at the time, you and them are gonna have some rough times.

That's kinda what I thought...

RictusGrin · Post by **RictusGrin** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:35 pm

st33ve0 wrote:
Diomed wrote:
st33ve0 wrote:My question is what happens if one of my family members uses one of my NFA weapons to defend themselves? Are they royally screwed because it was not their weapon and not their registered NFA item?
Were you present when they defended themselves? If you're there with them, you can probably avoid problems on that front ("I just handed my wife the first gun I came to in the safe, officer").

If they use it and you're in another state at the time, you and them are gonna have some rough times.
That's kinda what I thought...

Keep in mind that someone who is ostensibly a lawyer has posted in this very forum that even allowing someone to fire your NFA weapon in your presence is a violation of the NFA. However, I still don't agree with the premise and that thread died suddenly.

Stu · Post by **Stu** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:47 pm

RictusGrin wrote:
Keep in mind that someone who is ostensibly a lawyer has posted in this very forum that even allowing someone to fire your NFA weapon in your presence is a violation of the NFA. However, I still don't agree with the premise and that thread died suddenly.

If that is true, then how would Machine gun shoots work?

3101 · Post by **3101** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:50 pm

Stu, this is the same old "constructive vs actual" possession arguement, again....
of course, if ACTUAL possession were required, there could never be a machine gun or silencer shoot, much less any demos....
Constructive possession (where you COULD exercise control over the firearm or silencer) is plenty good enough