AR rifles as a "home defense" guns?

if my life is on the line im not going to dwell about which will look best in court when i grab it. In my bedroom i could equally bring a 12g assault shotgun or an AR into play, i cant imagine a scenario inside where i wouldnt reach for the 12g. If for some reason id be engaging targets outside at distance (which may be hard to defend in court) then yeah id take the AR. Of course if all i had was an AR, or a pistol, or a bat, id put my hand on it (and my cellphone calling 911) and try to improvise thru the situation as best i could.
 
The concept of weapons influence on juries occurs when this isn't the case.

Yes, I know. That is what I am saying. Over and over...:rolleyes:
 
Just because a firearm is accurate at long distance, that does not mean that it must be used only at long distance. Even at relatively short distances of 25 yards or less, most people shoot more accurately with a rifle than they do with a handgun.

Now, you'd obviously have some difficult questions to answer if you shot someone from several hundred yards away and tried to claim self-defense, but I don't really see rifle vs. handgun/shotgun being an issue if we're still talking about easily justifiable self-defense ranges.

What may be an issue, however, is the use of a gun that is perceived as a "military weapon" or "assault weapon". While I don't think the use of a rifle in and of itself would be likely to present extra difficulty in legal defense, the use of an AR-15 or AK-47 might be more difficult to defend than the use of a Marlin 336 or Remington 7600. This is because the former two have been labeled by the media and certain politicians as "assault weapons" while the latter two are marketed as and commonly viewed as sporting rifles.

That being said, I've never heard or read of someone being convicted of a crime due to their choice of weapon without some other questionable circumstance(s) being present. However, as has been pointed out, the fact that you're facing trial to begin with indicates that circumstances aren't as cut and dry as you might prefer. I think that the political disposition of your area would probably be a factor as well. For example, someone who defends himself/herself with an AR-15 is likely to be viewed differently in MA or CA than he/she would be in TX or AZ.

Really, there's no universal "cookie cutter" answer here as it all depends on your own unique circumstances. I personally keep and AK-type rifle among my HD firearms, but I live in a relatively firearm/self-defense friendly area and have found my particular rifle to be both easy to shoot well and extremely reliable. In my case, the benefit outweighs the risk. There are no guarantees as people have been able to legally justify the use of very exotic weapons including full-auto rifles and submachineguns while other people have been unable to legally justify the use of relatively mundane weapons such as double-barrel shotguns and revolvers.

If you want an effective rifle that is less likely to be perceived as an "assault weapon", there are choices available. Favorites in this category include the Ruger Mini-14/Mini Thirty and pistol-caliber lever-action rifles such as the Marlin M94 and Winchester M92. If you're comfortable with more powerful rifle cartridges like .243 Winchester, .270 Winchester, .308 Winchester, or .30-06 Springfield, the Remington 750 or 7600 are also viable choices.
 
When you can guarantee that a shooting is covered by the Castle Doctrine, you will have no worries.

Make sure you get that "guarantee" in writing and signed by a judge.

Someone is going to make the decision that a "Castle Doctrine" law applies.

It may be a DA, it may well be a judge.

You would be well advised to show up with an attorney to any and all meetings or hearings.

Are you 'on trial'?

Probably not yet.

But the outcome of the hearing or meeting may well determine if that is the path that you will soon be on.
 
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).

Shame on you - this is what leads to assault weapons bans and all that nonsense, in addition to good people getting hassled because of the color or style of their rifle. IMO, if prosecutors have to resort to sensationalizing the brief in order to get a conviction, something is definitely not right.

Sorry, this stuff gets under my skin when people (well meaning, I'm sure) say they are pro-rights and then go do stuff like this. As a prosecutor, you have a great potential to uphold or trample on the right to keep and bear arms.
 
In Oklahoma, South Carolina and other states that have what would be considered "strong" castle doctrine law... you aren't going to be going to any court where anything has to "hold up" - no criminal charges, no civil suit. (Assuming this is a legitimate HD situation)

If you are in Washington DC, or Vermont... then it's another matter.

Ummm...

Can't speak to DC, but in spite of not having a 'Castle Doctrine' here in VT, the law is very clear:

§ 2305. Justifiable homicide

If a person kills or wounds another under any of the circumstances enumerated below, he or she shall be guiltless:

(1) In the just and necessary defense of his or her own life or the life of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister, master, mistress, servant, guardian or ward; or

(2) In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, with force or violence; or

(3) In the case of a civil officer; or a military officer or private soldier when lawfully called out to suppress riot or rebellion, or to prevent or suppress invasion, or to assist in serving legal process, in suppressing opposition against him or her in the just and necessary discharge of his or her duty. (Amended 1983, No. 23, § 2.)


http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=13&Chapter=053&Section=02305
 
I think Harry Beckwith used an M16 to thwart off burglars. Shot one of them. Read about the Beckwith Incident. I don't believe he suffered any legal consequences.
 
A rifle of any serious caliber makes blast/gas issues at close range almost as bad for your ears as it did for this guys head ( 30-30 point blank range).

Sorry for those who may be squemish about the pic, but a subsonic round like a handgun in .45 would serve you better INDOORS ( Home defense) than a carbine or rifle.

See pic in this link:

http://terrify.rotten.com/gunshot/30-30.html
 
A suppressed 9mm or 45 with subsonic rounds would be ideal for home defense. A few rounds of gunfire indoors can deafen a person, especially young children's undeveloped ears.
 
It has been done in the past with no ill effects for anyone but the criminal. My best advice is know the laws WRT self defense for the jurisdiction you are in and follow them. Then it should not matter what you use, you will win in the end.

I do want a suppressor though just for the hearing protection aspect.
 
Certain folks believe that you will be okay so long as the gun you are using is what the local cops use. It probably would not be very difficult to find a local PD that uses AR15s as your "It's okay, it is what the police use" justification.
 
Im not sure why I would ever pick a small caliber AR over a 12 Ga shotgun for the close in situation of self defense.... Seems like a poor choice of weapons....

But I suppose if you felt you needed to use a less powerful weapon (AR) you might be able to legally justify it but ARs have such bad press in the media that you almost certainly will be subject to some sort of prosecution.

For me I just dont see it.... Nothing says stop what your doing like hearing a round chambering in a 12Ga.
 
Im not sure why I would ever pick a small caliber AR over a 12 Ga shotgun for the close in situation of self defense.... Seems like a poor choice of weapons....
Perhaps it isn't the best choice, but 5.56 is extremely lethal at close range. So is 12 gauge, unless home invaders are wearing body armor. (not unheard of).

But I suppose if you felt you needed to use a less powerful weapon (AR) you might be able to legally justify it but ARs have such bad press in the media that you almost certainly will be subject to some sort of prosecution.
As pointed out, only if it's a questionable shoot in the first place.

For me I just dont see it.... Nothing says stop what your doing like hearing a round chambering in a 12Ga.
Except the actual blast from the gun. I cannot see the tactical advantage of warning the invader that he is about to be shot. Why give him time to react with his own shot? The whole "rack the shotgun and watch them run in fear" thing is for the movies. If an armed intruder is in my home, the first and last sound his brain will register is BAAA(NNGggg).
 
but 5.56 is extremely lethal at close range.

My experience in combat in Afganistan differs from what you have said... of course the civilian market has ammo that offers vastly superior performance from what the military is allowed to use....

All I can say is for myself I have little use for 5.56 outside of small to mid sized animals but then again no one ever said using the 22 as a starting point for a combat round was a great idea...

It is what it is but it is but my experience was anything but what you have written....

Also I have personally talked with an officer who said that chambering a round in the 12 ga ended confrontations quite often... Apparently at least for him it did have some positive effectiveness...
 
Last edited:
For me I just dont see it.... Nothing says stop what your doing like hearing a round chambering in a 12Ga.

Also I have personally talked with an officer who said that chambering a round in the 12 ga ended confrontations quite often... Apparently at least for him it did have some positive effecitiveness...

Turning on a single light has also been very successful in ending home invasions, but I would not want to count on it working.

As noted by Glenn elsewhere....
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=419452&highlight=rack+shotgun&page=4
Given most economic criminals would be deterred by any clear warning, the magic shotgun rack used in a tactically risky manner is not without critique.
 
The argument against a round in the chamber for shotguns is that many are not drop safe like most handguns. Also, they have a light trigger pull and usually aren't secured against kids or dogs. Both of these will ND.

The point is well taken though that when you pick up the gun, you should chamber a round and not wait to do a John Wayne sound effect as you warble your war cry on the top of the stairs.

Remember to rack the gun repeatedly, if the BGs don't hear the first rack.
 
Remember to rack the gun repeatedly, if the BGs don't hear the first rack.
:confused:

I keep a round on the tray in my M1-Super 90. If I am careful, I can rack a round pretty quietly, though not silently. Alternatively, I can rip the bolt with my off-hand while already on target and get the first round off a split-second later.

One could do almost the same thing with a pump gun. Just keep the safety off and the chamber empty. "Clack-clack-bang".
 
Back
Top