Thank you!! The only information out of that article that has any relevance to this thread may be:
You and I know that Class III holders are the ultimate “card carrying good guys and gals.” That particular card says they have been investigated for six months by the Federal government and been found trustworthy to possess machine guns. Unfortunately, most of the public in the jury pool, and most politically motivated prosecutors, don’t know that. Every self-defense shooting I’ve run across with a Class III weapon, however justified, has at the very least ended with the shooter facing a grand jury. Asked what he thinks would have happened if he’d shot Hamilton with a Remington 870 Wingmaster instead, Fadden replies with certainty, “I would have gone home that night. I’ve told dozens of people since, ‘Do not use a Class III weapon for personal defense.”‘ Today, the guns Gary is likely to have in his car have neutral images: an M-1 .30 carbine, and a 10mm Glock 20 pistol.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I were to choose what tool is most appropriate for the situation based on the possibility of facing grand jury, then maybe I would not bother owning ANY firearms at all. Whether or not Mr. Fadden would have faced a Grand Jury had he used a Remington 870 is nothing more than pure speculation. This is because he DID NOT use an 870. Any scumbag anti-gun lawyer can put a negative spin on any type of firearm that he should choose. There have been individuals who were criminally prosecuted (as in a jury trial) for using a 5-shot revolver in what was clearly self-defense.
FWIW, I have attended Massad Ayoob's Judicious Use of Lethal Force (about 6 years ago) and have taken a lot of his lessons to heart. But that does not mean that I agree with everything he said (he did mention this case in that class). By the time I actually deploy my SBR, whether or not I might have to face a grand jury will be the least of my worries. JM2CW.



Reply With Quote
.

Bookmarks