No, neither is it illegal to use a machinegun or suppressor as long as they are legally possessed by you.
If the shooting is good, the shooting is good.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No, neither is it illegal to use a machinegun or suppressor as long as they are legally possessed by you.
If the shooting is good, the shooting is good.
Ok... I think I get it. I was just misreading the response. That's what I get for being all hopped up on candy from my easter basket.
Stephen
Molon Labe
"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer. Your fate is fixed. Fear profits a man nothing." Herger the Joyous
Good. Now share some of your candy! I didn't get SQUAT!!
So if I understand it correctly there is a legal issue with using an NFA firearm for home defense--that legal issue is that the police would take possession of it after a shooting, which is a type of transferance that is technically in violation of the NFA. It would be the same thing as loaning the NFA firearm to someone who is not listed as an owner or whatever.
Is this correct?
thanks
It's not an issue. Citizen or LE.
Get an evidence receipt, as is SOP in any competent LE agency.
You'll have bigger things to worry about.
2012 National Zumba Endurance Champion
الدهون القاع الفتيات لك جعل العالم هزاز جولة الذهاب
No.
Legit gun + legit shoot = good times for all. Shouldn't be a problem unless you get a very uninformed individual.
AFAIK I can legally carry my beretta all day with my suppressor attached.
Very true, however one can't help but think of the documented incidents when someone used an NFA firearm for self-defense, such as in the case of Gary Fadden and Harry Beckwith. Every time seemed to result in a lengthy court battle where in every case the defendant was absolved of all wrong doing, yet they ALL stated basically stated it would have been a lot less painful if they had used a run of the mill shotgun or pistol instead. Allbeit they both used machine guns, however I am sure a SBR like a Krink or a Mk18 would probably look equally as evil to an uninformed jury. Just some food for thought, but personally as a civilian I think I would rather reach for my non-NFA weapon given the opportunity first rather than face a long unnecessary court battle.
http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...112685749/pg_1
That is still no guarantee of anything. Again, take the Harold Fisch case. He didn't use an NFA weapon, but the prosecution still demonized the 10mm pistol he did use as "more powerful than what the police carry".
Any weapon can be made to seem evil... even a stupid bird gun. The important thing is the legitimacy of the use of force. The cleaner the shoot, the less important the type of weapon generally speaking. That said, I'm grabbing the best tool for the job. In most cases that is going to be the carbine.
"You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan
Bookmarks