You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
AR rifles as a "home defense" guns?
- Thread starter gringojosh
- Start date
The reason I asked the OP which "court" he was talking about is that some states do not have laws to preclude a civil wrongful death suit even if it was determined to be justifible homocide (or similar), or there is no underlying criminal charge or even if you were proven innocent.
I was thinking about the Mossberg 930 Field and the 930 SPX 8-shot. The Field model has a longer barrel and shorter feed tube but other than that - they are basically identical guns. I'm pretty sure the stock and forend are interchangeable. I have no problem with having a walnut stock and forend on my HD shotgun - I'm not going to hang stuff off of there anyway.
I do think people make cosmetic changes to their weapons - like death's head/ skull & cross bones / Punisher logo, that have no effect on the weapons functioning. The other can be true - if it doesn't affect the functioning of the weapon why not make it look "friendlier".
I was thinking about the Mossberg 930 Field and the 930 SPX 8-shot. The Field model has a longer barrel and shorter feed tube but other than that - they are basically identical guns. I'm pretty sure the stock and forend are interchangeable. I have no problem with having a walnut stock and forend on my HD shotgun - I'm not going to hang stuff off of there anyway.
I do think people make cosmetic changes to their weapons - like death's head/ skull & cross bones / Punisher logo, that have no effect on the weapons functioning. The other can be true - if it doesn't affect the functioning of the weapon why not make it look "friendlier".
I know you guys aren't on the topic of drywall penetration any longer, but a helpful link regardless. Hopefully you guys get some use out of it, and take it for what it is.
Drywall vs. Common Handgun & Rifle Cartridges
Drywall vs. Common Handgun & Rifle Cartridges
Sadly, in a lot of cases, perception trumps reality. And using a rifle, particularly a military look alike rifle, by choice, can give the otherside the opportunity to try and convince the jury of something that isn't really so.
They can try to make it look like you were eager and looking forward to shooting someone. They try to do this with handloads, or a gun that has been customised, or anything that they can use to imply that the shooting wasn't a last resort action.
Use of a military style rifle, particularly when it wasn't the only gun available will be pointed out as "proof" you were anticipating a confrontation (at best) or that you were actively looking for the chance of shooting someone (at worst).
Something like "a regular handgun wasn't deadly enough for you, you chose to use an assault weapon!" etc. Anything and everything is grist for their propaganda mill to paint you as irresponsible, and therefore, in the wrong.
Leaving aside the fact that for most home defense situations any rifle is overpowered, over ranged, too long for best use inside the house etc., etc., etc.....the fact that you chose to use an "assault weapon" (and they can get away with calling it that, because, under several laws, it is defined that way), iis going to be used to play on the emotions and sensibilities of the jury.
Even though I live in a rural location, where a rifle is actually somewhat useful for "home defense" (and that includes predator and varmint control), for self defense against human attackers its a very very unusual situation where you would be justified shooting them at rifle ranges.
At close ranges, particularly inside the home, the rifle (even a carbine) has distinct disadvantages over a handgun, or a shotgun.
But, if its the only gun you have, or its the only one you can get to in time, that's what you use. Just be prepared to have to counter the "evil" image the other side is going to make it out to be in court.
A tricked out AR, with a 30rnd stick in the well creates the image of "offense" more than "defense" in the minds of the non enthusiast, and tis quite likely there will be more of them on a jury than people who actually understand firearms and their use has nothing to do with appearance.
They can try to make it look like you were eager and looking forward to shooting someone. They try to do this with handloads, or a gun that has been customised, or anything that they can use to imply that the shooting wasn't a last resort action.
Use of a military style rifle, particularly when it wasn't the only gun available will be pointed out as "proof" you were anticipating a confrontation (at best) or that you were actively looking for the chance of shooting someone (at worst).
Something like "a regular handgun wasn't deadly enough for you, you chose to use an assault weapon!" etc. Anything and everything is grist for their propaganda mill to paint you as irresponsible, and therefore, in the wrong.
Leaving aside the fact that for most home defense situations any rifle is overpowered, over ranged, too long for best use inside the house etc., etc., etc.....the fact that you chose to use an "assault weapon" (and they can get away with calling it that, because, under several laws, it is defined that way), iis going to be used to play on the emotions and sensibilities of the jury.
Even though I live in a rural location, where a rifle is actually somewhat useful for "home defense" (and that includes predator and varmint control), for self defense against human attackers its a very very unusual situation where you would be justified shooting them at rifle ranges.
At close ranges, particularly inside the home, the rifle (even a carbine) has distinct disadvantages over a handgun, or a shotgun.
But, if its the only gun you have, or its the only one you can get to in time, that's what you use. Just be prepared to have to counter the "evil" image the other side is going to make it out to be in court.
A tricked out AR, with a 30rnd stick in the well creates the image of "offense" more than "defense" in the minds of the non enthusiast, and tis quite likely there will be more of them on a jury than people who actually understand firearms and their use has nothing to do with appearance.
I know of a couple different attackers who were able to get acquitted after their crime and the defender's gun's appearance came into play.
The first was an army buddy who stopped a home invasion and domestic assault with his SKS when his girlfriend's ex boyfriend showed up at their apartment with a samarai sword, mace, and what he thought was homemade chloroform. The ex boyfriend's attorney claimed that my buddy's "military Assault rifle" (it had a bayonet) was proof of a militant vigilante mindset and the ex just took prudent precautions to protect himself from a violent extremist. He said the ex just innocently stopped by to check the well being of his friend (the girlfriend) who he was concerned about since she was living with such a dangerous man. They then said that my buddy was obviously derangeed since he had come back from Iraq just a few months earlier and it was well known how most Iraqi vets are unstable and suffer from PTSD.
We live in a very liberal college town and the jury (all democrats) bought the BS and acquitted the ex for everything but a misdemeanor trespassing charge. It took him 8 months to get his SKS back.
The other time it was a little more complicated, but the fact that the victim defended himself with a Glock that had a 30 rd magazine in it was used by the defense as proof that the victim was a vigilante looking for a fight and wanted to get car jacked. The disadvantaged youths who got shot in the commission of the crime were just "asking for directions"
The first was an army buddy who stopped a home invasion and domestic assault with his SKS when his girlfriend's ex boyfriend showed up at their apartment with a samarai sword, mace, and what he thought was homemade chloroform. The ex boyfriend's attorney claimed that my buddy's "military Assault rifle" (it had a bayonet) was proof of a militant vigilante mindset and the ex just took prudent precautions to protect himself from a violent extremist. He said the ex just innocently stopped by to check the well being of his friend (the girlfriend) who he was concerned about since she was living with such a dangerous man. They then said that my buddy was obviously derangeed since he had come back from Iraq just a few months earlier and it was well known how most Iraqi vets are unstable and suffer from PTSD.
We live in a very liberal college town and the jury (all democrats) bought the BS and acquitted the ex for everything but a misdemeanor trespassing charge. It took him 8 months to get his SKS back.
The other time it was a little more complicated, but the fact that the victim defended himself with a Glock that had a 30 rd magazine in it was used by the defense as proof that the victim was a vigilante looking for a fight and wanted to get car jacked. The disadvantaged youths who got shot in the commission of the crime were just "asking for directions"
If you're being tried in court you have failed three tests:
1. The police did not believe your story.
What the police believe does not matter all that much.
They do not prosecute or make prosecutorial decisions.
2. The prosecutor did not believe your story.
Or they think they can get more votes in the next election cycle.
At least thid IS a person who can actually make a decision.
It is called 'proprietorial discretion.'
3. The grand jury did not believe your story.
Maybe, or a zealous prosecutor (possibly overzealous) made the case to a grand jury.
It can allow them to NOT have to make a decision about the case, and risk the political fallout.
If the grand jury refuses to indict the prosecutor can still trumpet to libs he "Did the right thing" and if it indicts he can tell conersvatives it "Was not my call."
Some places require all homicides to go before a grand jury, but the prosecutor still normally has plenty of discretion how he steers the case before them.
Last edited:
What the police believe does not matter all that much.
i'm not sure where you come from. Where i come from the police report carries an awful lot of weight. A prosecutor seldom ignores the recommendation of the police.
+1Ahem - I know something about this. Here's the bottom line with firearms issues - if the shoot is ambiguous (which it is if you are going to trial), jury simulation data is clear that weapons issues can influence potential jurors.
Folks will say - if it is a good shoot, weapons issues don't make a difference.
If you are in court, it isn't a good shoot.
DAs will emphasize the evil nature of things in some cases: gun appearance, training - for example. We have simulations and cases to support this.
This is why I have a plain jane Mossberg 500 in my closet (revolver by the bed). I consider my AR as a true SHTF type weapon since I live in suburbia. If I lived in a rural area, a rifle might make more sense. If I wanted to use a rifle instead of a shotgun as my primary home defense long gun, I would consider buying a Ruger Mini-14 just because it doesn't have that evil black rifle appearance. A lever action rifle in a pistol caliber like .357 magnum would also be an option.
Even gun friendly prosecutors in gun friendly states will use gun stereotypes if it helps their case. I've had a couple where AK-47 style rifles were involved and you can bet I used the term "assault rifle" liberally when I filed briefs with the court (I'm an appellate prosecutor). It's just part of building the story even if it's not a major building block.
2damnold4this
New member
KyJim, that is an interesting comment.
From a pure technical point of view, A carbine requires less training to shoot accurately than does a pistol. Historically in WW II, this determination is why the M-1 Carbine was initially issued to troops who traditionally had been provided with pistols. Later it was issued generally to Officers, NCOs and soldiers who duties required them to carry heavy or bulky loads. Communications soldiers were one class.
My preferred HD weapon is a 45 1911. My wife has a 12ga. Unfortunately, she is afraid of the shotgun. She has expressed intrest in my AR 15. I don't think a scared woman alone would have a problem in AZ.
The second issue is the actions of the shooter immediately following the incident.
Based on my recent experience with Sheriff Paul Babeau and his special enforcement unit, I have come to the following conclusions:
1. Do not trust the Police.
2. The Police lie. (My attorneys words not mine. He is now a Superior Court Judge.)
3. Be cooperative but Don't talk immediately after the incident claim the truth you are to upset to talk. Conduct your "interview" only in the pressence of your attorney. Anything you say before you are Mirandized will be used against you. Preplan for that inevitability. Get an attorney who is knowledgable about firearms law. Not your tax or real Estate Attorney. $3,000 is a small price to pay considering what you stand to loose.
4. What you do and say immediately after the event will have major consquence down the line. Bernard Goetz, Long Island Train shooter, is a good case study of what not to do.
5. The CVS road rage shooting in Phoenix is a good example of how a bad situation can be remedied by a good Attorney.
6. It is better to look guilty initially and get good advice, than attempt to look not guilty without advice.
Hopefully, you will never face self defense situation.
If you do, shoot straight, hit the bad guys, and survive.
My preferred HD weapon is a 45 1911. My wife has a 12ga. Unfortunately, she is afraid of the shotgun. She has expressed intrest in my AR 15. I don't think a scared woman alone would have a problem in AZ.
The second issue is the actions of the shooter immediately following the incident.
Based on my recent experience with Sheriff Paul Babeau and his special enforcement unit, I have come to the following conclusions:
1. Do not trust the Police.
2. The Police lie. (My attorneys words not mine. He is now a Superior Court Judge.)
3. Be cooperative but Don't talk immediately after the incident claim the truth you are to upset to talk. Conduct your "interview" only in the pressence of your attorney. Anything you say before you are Mirandized will be used against you. Preplan for that inevitability. Get an attorney who is knowledgable about firearms law. Not your tax or real Estate Attorney. $3,000 is a small price to pay considering what you stand to loose.
4. What you do and say immediately after the event will have major consquence down the line. Bernard Goetz, Long Island Train shooter, is a good case study of what not to do.
5. The CVS road rage shooting in Phoenix is a good example of how a bad situation can be remedied by a good Attorney.
6. It is better to look guilty initially and get good advice, than attempt to look not guilty without advice.
Hopefully, you will never face self defense situation.
If you do, shoot straight, hit the bad guys, and survive.
Double Naught Spy
New member
I see posts about using AR-type rifles as "home defense" guns and can't help wonder how that would hold up in court. I can see a handgun or a shotgun, but a rifle accurate to hundreds of yards makes me wonder.
Why would it matter if it was accurate to hundreds of yards?
You should use whatever weaponry you have that you can use effectively and that will provide you with the greatest chances for survival in your given situation.
Trying to select lawyer-proof weaponry can be contrary to selecting effective self defense weaponry.
Think about it another way. You are in a life or death situation and a bad guy is trying to kill you or a loved one. What is your most immediate need and greatest goal? Is it being concerned about what might happen in court at some unknown point in the future or is it about stopping the threat?
Again, it depends on your state and whether or not your incident is ruled a Castle Doctrine defensive case. Then, it truly doesn't matter what you use, whether it is an AR15 or a Louisville Slugger.
Here in Co, if the incident is determined to be Castle Doctrine home defense, you are in the clear from both criminal and a civil legal action regardless of the weapon you use.
If you live in a state without Castle Doctrine laws, it could be another situation entirely.
Here are some good examples from Missouri, where the residents were not charged even after shooting unarmed invaders: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/castle-doctrine-cases/article_86f5e6df-011e-59f5-9b2c-2f686c899e07.html
Here in Co, if the incident is determined to be Castle Doctrine home defense, you are in the clear from both criminal and a civil legal action regardless of the weapon you use.
If you live in a state without Castle Doctrine laws, it could be another situation entirely.
Here are some good examples from Missouri, where the residents were not charged even after shooting unarmed invaders: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/castle-doctrine-cases/article_86f5e6df-011e-59f5-9b2c-2f686c899e07.html
Double Naught Spy
New member
Again, it depends on your state and whether or not your incident is ruled a Castle Doctrine defensive case. Then, it truly doesn't matter what you use, whether it is an AR15 or a Louisville Slugger.
As near as I can tell, it doesn't seem to matter what weapon is used in those states if there is a death or injury that results. People seem willing to sue regardless of the weaponry. They will claim everything from wrongful death, excessive force, endangerment, and negligence.
Where i come from the police report carries an awful lot of weight. A prosecutor seldom ignores the recommendation of the police.
That is not the same as deciding what cases to pursue.
While a prosecutor may rely on the police take, they do not have the final word.
The prosecutor often does.
In a jurisdiction that requires all homicides to go before a grand jury, the police have even less ability to affect outcomes.
"An awful lot of weight" does not make control or make a decision.
As near as I can tell, it doesn't seem to matter what weapon is used in those states if there is a death or injury that results. People seem willing to sue regardless of the weaponry.
That's true, but in a Castle Doctrine ruling, the defender is often protected from civil action as well (depending on the state).
From Wikipedia: In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages or injury resulting from the lawful use of not excessive force.
That's true, but in a Castle Doctrine ruling, the defender is often protected from civil action as well (depending on the state).
From Wikipedia: In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages or injury resulting from the lawful use of not excessive force.
Double Naught Spy
New member
That's true, but in a Castle Doctrine ruling, the defender is often protected from civil action as well (depending on the state).
Yes, we all know this. How does that affect your self defense choices? If you are not in a state with castle doctrine or not in a situation where castle doctrine would apply to you and you are in fear for your life, what decision for self defense are you making? Are you going to reason that you need to use a kinder, gentler manner for keeping the bad guy from killing you so that he or his family won't sue you? Do you have some sort of listing for lawyer proof weaponry or methods?
Sorry. You keep saying some states have castle doctrine and some states don't, but I am not clear what your point is.
If somebody is trying to kill me or a loved one, I am not going to waste a lot of thought on trying to figure out a lawyer-proof way to effect self defense for that situation. Whether or not somebody might want to sue me at a later date isn't a primary concern.
The OP is this: I see posts about using AR-type rifles as "home defense" guns and can't help wonder how that would hold up in court. I can see a handgun or a shotgun, but a rifle accurate to hundreds of yards makes me wonder.
My point (which I thought I made) is that in a Castle Doctrine state, you should feel free to use whatever home-defense weapon you like because you don't have to worry about legal and civil aftermath if your shooting is ruled a Castle Doctrine shooting.
I can't speak for anyone else, but if I lived in a non-CD state, an AR variant would likely not be my first choice for HD. There are plenty of other viable options that don't look as "scary" to the soccer moms and Gomers that will be on your jury.
My point (which I thought I made) is that in a Castle Doctrine state, you should feel free to use whatever home-defense weapon you like because you don't have to worry about legal and civil aftermath if your shooting is ruled a Castle Doctrine shooting.
I can't speak for anyone else, but if I lived in a non-CD state, an AR variant would likely not be my first choice for HD. There are plenty of other viable options that don't look as "scary" to the soccer moms and Gomers that will be on your jury.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The concept of weapons influence on juries occurs when this isn't the case.
That's a variant of the good shoot mantra. I wonder why people continually miss this point.
The obvious answer (as stated in the professional literature) is that if one uses techinque X, Y or Z or instrument X, Y or Z be aware of risks at trial and how to deal with them.
The legal experts, prosecutors and simulation experts start with the premised THAT YOU ARE ON TRIAL.
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be finally realize this simple point.
if your shooting is ruled a Castle Doctrine shooting.
That's a variant of the good shoot mantra. I wonder why people continually miss this point.
The obvious answer (as stated in the professional literature) is that if one uses techinque X, Y or Z or instrument X, Y or Z be aware of risks at trial and how to deal with them.
The legal experts, prosecutors and simulation experts start with the premised THAT YOU ARE ON TRIAL.
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be finally realize this simple point.