|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In Arizona, if you are not criminally charged for using deadly force (i.e. it was self defense) then you cannot be sued by the vicitim or his/her family (someone can correct me if I am wrong).
There are also remedies in place for compensation and payment of legal fees if you are acquitted.
Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/
Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/
M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141
Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com
Yeah, we got off on our own thing there! I appreciate the debate whether I'm right or wrong or it's just simply wording. Hopefully someone learned something from that and the other posters that will either allow them to use the weapon they want for defense or even if it just gets someone to look into deeper....that's a good thing.
If there's something I said that wasn't clear, you think is plain wrong or just feel like talking about it a bit more, feel free to PM me. This is one of those times where it's not about who's right, but that the info itself is correct.
Jon
Last edited by jonconsiglio; 07-14-11 at 17:30. Reason: Spelling
Proven combat techniques may not be flashy and may require a bit more physical effort on the part of the shooter. Further, they may not win competition matches, but they will help ensure your survival in a shooting or gunfight on the street. ~ Paul Howe
A lot has to do with local law and how it reflects attitude toward firearms (like is there a Castle Doctrine, will issue CCW, etc). Most important is the circumstances of the shooting. I could find links to a lot of home defense shootings with AKs where the defender was not prosecuted.
The gunwriter most responsible for the "looks bad in court argument" is Massad Ayoob. He originally started writing about it in the early 1980s, a time when most police officers were armed with revolvers that may or may not have been loaded with hollowpoints.
It's different today, as most police are armed with high capacity automatics loaded with hollowpoints and often carry an AR-15 sytle "patrol rifle" in their car. Also at the time he started writing about it, the phrase "home invasion" was not in the dictionary. Also, compare the number of places that have a castle doctrine and issue CCW permits to any citizen with a clean background who passes a perscribed course now to the time when Ayoob first advanced that argument.
If it does come to court, a decent attorney can make a lot of these arguments look foolish. If the prosecution makes a big deal about hollowpoints, the lawyer can respond, "You mean like the type the court ballifs have loaded in their guns? Or perhaps the type that are standard issue to the city and state police as well as virtually every law enforcement agency in the country?" Likewise with ARs: "You mean like the type of rifle carried in this city's patrol cars which is the most common type of rifle you will find in police cars across the country?"
It is certainly going to be different in a state like New York, New Jersey, and California than it is in TX or Ok. All this should be a factor in your firearms selection.
Usually when there is a big deal made of the firearm used it is either illegal for the person to own where the shooting occurred or there were other circumstances that called the shooting into question.
Typically when you hear about weapons or ammo being made an issue by the prosecution, there are a wide number of other more serious questions about the justifiablility of the shooting such as whether the defender's life truly was in jeopardy, whether the defender was justified in shooting under the laws where the shooting took place, or whether the defender did something to cause, contribute to, or keep the situation that led to the shooting going.
I'm talking about situations where perhaps the defender left the safety of their home to shoot someone in their yard or breaking into their car, etc. In situations like this, the shooter would have major problems regardless of what firearm they were using.
Proven combat techniques may not be flashy and may require a bit more physical effort on the part of the shooter. Further, they may not win competition matches, but they will help ensure your survival in a shooting or gunfight on the street. ~ Paul Howe
My only question is if you use an SBR to defend your home and the police confiscate it in wake of a home defense shooting, as they usually do, how do you handle the matter with the ATF since it represents a transfer of ownership-if even a temporary one?
And will this have an effect on your ownership and future ownership with the ATF?
This is an excellent point and it serves to illustrate why the AR/M4 is a good choice for self-defense and a gun like the AK is not. Even though your AK is perfectly legal, it has been so demonized by the media as the bad guy's weapon that it puts your attorney at a disadvantage if there is ever a question about the incident. I'm not saying get rid of your AK, but be aware of the fact that if you are in a shooting you don't want anything about your actions to be questionable. For another example, you are better off with a defensive gun named the "Model XYZ" rather than one named the "Pit Bull."
It's also only a little bit of a stretch to say that window decals, bumper stickers, and wall posters that proudly proclaim "I don't dial 911" and such are a no-no.
Your age and overall character and demeanor are factors, too. In the Beckwith example, suppose he had been a twenty-two year old with somewhat of a checkered past himself. Could that have made a difference in how the cops treated him? You bet it would.
Again, I'm referring primarily to the potential for you to lose a civil suit filed by a wounded perp than your going to prison for the shooting.
The point is that you have to think about your total "footprint" of potential liability and act accordingly.
it's truly a shame, but here in California, after many legal struggles, the AR is finally starting to get some acceptance. a California resident may now possess an AR if it has a "bullet button" and no more than a 10 round magazine. (more than10 round, detachable magazines, are illegal here under any circumstance in centerfire.)
California legislators live in terror of AR's and AK's, in fact, it is basically, semi-automatic, ANY kind of firearm with a detachable magazine that is "evil" and feared and loathed by California state legislature. (except when in the hands of LE, of course.)
i believe a person might do themselves a 'favor' by considering a medium caliber lever or pump action such as a .38/357 for HD.
for some reason, or reasons unknown, in many persons minds, the use of an AR is "evil" where the use of a pump or lever action doesn't seem as heinous...go figure; i believe it's the result of the fear instilled by legislators and anti-gunners.
in the end, there are legitimate reasons for any, and all, cases for HD firearms selection be they AR, Pump or lever action...
it is better to remain silent and be thought as being a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt...
This isn't entirely true. There are such things as registered assault weapons (that got grandfathered in). Same thing for mags; if you owned it prior to 2000, you can keep using your mags in your RAW or a featureless build.
See Calguns.net for more details on this type of stuff. (They have a flow chart there to help you determine if your gun is legal or not).
Bookmarks