Bayonette legal for home defense?

bayonet thwarts burglary

83yo man uses bayonet against burglarScott Casey | August 23, 2007 - 1:18PM

An 83-year-old man was allegedly forced to use a bayonet defend himself against a man who broke into his Tin Can Bay home last night.

A Police Media spokesman said about 10.20pm yesterday, a 53-year-old allegedly broke into the man's home on Tuna Way and attacked the elderly resident, who defended himself with a bayonet.

The spokesman said the alleged's burglar's hand was sliced in the incident, while the elderly man also sustained minor injuries, including cuts and abrasions.

Both were treated at the Gympie Hospital.

The alleged offender has been charged with burglary and serious assault. He will appear in Gympie Magistrates Court later today.
 
As far as legality goes, so long as the bayonet itself is within the knife laws of your state I don't see how it would be illegal although you might look like a kook in court.

Tactically, you really need to understand the role of a bayonet. The whole point of a bayonet (no pun intended) is to give you a viable weapon when you've run out of ammunition or when the fighting is at such close quarters that your firearm is no longer practical (this usually means a manually operated gun).

The bayonet was concieved when firearms were by and large single-shot weapons and very slow to reload (muzzle loaders). If the enemy is close and you've already fired your shot, a blade is much more practical than a gun which takes a third of a minute to reload. Bayonets continued for much the same role up through the advent of repeating firearms because, while certainly better than a single-shot, a bolt-action rifle still isn't particualry practical at bad breath distance. With the advent of semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons, bayonets became much less tactically relevant and pretty much used only as a last-ditch when out of ammo or as a general utility knife which also happens to be able to be attached to a rifle. From WWII on, it became rare to routinely see soldiers in the field with bayonets affixed.

Besides looking like a kook in court, a rifle or shotgun with a bayonet attached offers a couple of distinct tactical disadvantages for home defense. The bayonet, by its very nature, adds several inches to the OAL of the gun making it less manuverable in tight spaces. Also most firearms (Mosin-Nagants are one of the few exceptions) have their sights zeroed without the bayonet affixed. Any bayonet that comes into contact with the barrel is going to change the harmonics of the barrel and therefor the point of impact.

On the other hand, if you're out of ammo I suppose a bayonet can turn your gun from an expensive club into an expensive pike which is, I guess, somewhat more useful.

On a side note, I rather doubt that the triangular bayonet blade runs afoul of the Hauge convention as it was used on several military rifles including both the Mosin Nagant and certain SKS variants well into the 1950's and 1960's.
 
The Hague Conventions regulate the militaries of the world, not civilians.

Don't bring a knife to a knife fight unless it's all you have.
 
Got a new one

79a21a51.jpg
 
On a side note, I rather doubt that the triangular bayonet blade runs afoul of the Hauge convention as it was used on several military rifles including both the Mosin Nagant and certain SKS variants well into the 1950's and 1960's.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about Czarist Russia, but I am fairly certain (without checking) that the Soviet Union was not a signatory to the Hague Convention, nor Communist China, the two major users and suppliers of the Mosin Nagant and SKS design rifles. They would have no qualms about a triangular bayonet (or anything else convered under the European "rules of warfare".

I think that if you used the bayonet attached to a rifle to repel boarders, when you had other opitions, its certainly going to used against you in court (should it go to court). How successful the prosecution is using that to tarnish your image in the eyes of the jury is questionable, but I'm certain they would try.

One thing that will almost surely be ask is why didn't you just shoot your attacker. Answering that "I didn't want to wake up the neighborhood" probably wouldn't get you any points from the jury, unless maybe you are in the right part of the country.;)

Remember that the underlying premise of a claim of self defense for the use of deadly force, is that you had to do it. You had no other choice or option. You are admitting you did it, but that you had to do it. "He needed killin'" is no longer a valid legal defense in the US that I am familiar with. Although the sentement still abounds, and you might get agreement, it no longer excludes you from the penalties of law.

SO, you had to use the mounted bayonet to defend yourself. And the bad guy got hurt/died. Other than the scenario that you are surpised and have to grab the closest thing, and it happens to be an unloaded rifle with a bayonet affixed (and unsheathed - if you take the time to take the sheath off the bayonet, that opens up a whole 'nother kettle of fish as to the content of your character) just how do you explain to the authorities (police/prosecutor) just why you had to use it.

Personally, I'd love to hear that. And your lawyer ought to hear it first, then after he tells you that you were an idiot, you can try and figure out a way to keep the law from charging you.

For some odd reason, I'm, getting the mental image of an aged Pacific war vet, have a bad flashback, grabbing the display Arisaka (because the Garand, which IS loaded, is in the bedroom;)) and lunging on the gangbanger who broke in, screaming "Banzai this punk!!!!" And, of course, leaving the punk pinned to the wall until the police arrive, so as to not disturb the evidence. OR perhaps sitting on the porch, having a smoke cleaning the blood off the bayonet when the cops show up....

Either way, that's going to be a tough sell in court. The idea of using the bayonet is just so ..farfetched.. today it will boggle the jurors minds.

OK, you bayonetted him, because the rifle wasn't loaded, right? Why didn't you buttstroke him, instead? Why did you have to stab him? (and there better be only one stab wound, or you are REALLY going to have some explaining to do! And no matter what the truth is, it might not help!

good luck
 
Concure with Al Norris' comment. Knife laws differ from gun laws. They very from state to state.

If memory serves me right, Arkansas' laws on using a knife were more stringent than using a firearm.
 
This is hypothetical,
Click to expand...

Sorry, sounds more like video game fantasy

you stab someone with a bayonet on a shotgun or EBR - it gets paraded in front of a jury

right or wrong, it is not going to be pretty for you
 
Mate, a knife is a deadly (or "lethal") weapon in every jurisdiction I can think of. If an intruder is IN my house, armed with a knife, and not running for the door with his back to me ... he's a lethal threat and I'm not about to play Heartbreak Ridge. I'm going to shoot him.
 
The only reason I would bayonet someone is if the gun was out of ammo or a wall hanger and the only thing I could get to. Of course all is fair if the perp is a threat to my safety. I will nail him to the wall if I have to. That being said, evening things up is a good way to get hurt. If the bad guy broke into your HOME and you feel that your life is Threatened (and it should if he broke in while you are home) All is fair, shotgun, handgun, bayonet, flamethrower :eek:, Protect your family by any means necessary to end the threat.
 
Who REALLY stores his rifles with affixed bayonet? These old battle rifles are absurdly long as it is.

Frankly, I find the idea of using a bayonet in home defense quite preposterous.
 
I do have some of my milsurps stored with bayonet fixed (and sheathed). Its a good way to ensure the bayonet stays with the rifle its intended for.;)

There's an old saying that in a knife fight, the winner goes to the hospital. Loser goes to the morgue.

If the bayonet is off the rifle, its a knife. If its on the rifle, just why would you be using it? (see my previous post).
 
Fix Bayonets! Charge!

Loved 44amp's first response, hilarious.

A rifle with bayonet is no more or less a deadly weapon in this case than just bashing someone's brains out with a SCUBA tank, or grabbing a wine bottle off the counter and beating someone's head in.

You have to take into account a jury, and most just aren't going to relate to bayoneting someone in your home...:D
 
OK, you bayonetted him, because the rifle wasn't loaded, right? Why didn't you buttstroke him, instead? Why did you have to stab him? (and there better be only one stab wound, or you are REALLY going to have some explaining to do! And no matter what the truth is, it might not help!
Click to expand...

Butt-stroking requires you to step in closer to your opponent to get in a hit. The bayonet hanging off the end of the barrel gives you the longest reach and keeps you a little further out of the bad guy's reach.

That said, I recommend the OP have a dedicated HD/SD handgun and leave the bayonet charges to military units that get themselves into a pickle.
 
csmss, my uncle has a WWII Japanese rifle (I think in 6mm or 6.5mm, not sure of make) with bayonet as a wall display. The only scenario where I could conceive of using a bayonet would be if I were at his house when somebody broke in. (He lives in MA; I can't bring my guns if I visit.)

Of course, he has guns and permit, so even then the bayonet would be last resort.
 
If you were to kill a bad guy intruder in your home. Even if you killed him with a large kitchen butcher knife....
It was in 'Self Defence'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top