NFA Devices for Home Defense (article)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andrew Wiggin

New member
Another article I wrote. The photos are mine as well. I'm just learning Photoshop so I'd be grateful for any criticism you care to offer on both the photos and the writing. The blog is not mine.


ot0q2s.jpg


The problem with opinions is that people who really don’t have any clue what they’re talking about are happy to offer one. They’ll just repeat any old garbage that they’ve heard on a subject, no matter how ridiculous and unfounded. It probably has a lot to do with universal human foibles and a psychologist could go into great detail about what causes people to do that. Ask a truck driver what he thinks about nuclear power, though, and he’ll expound at great length about the virtues of CANDU style generating facilities and the political feasibility of certifying a LFTR generating station, considering the influence that GE lobbyists have on the NRC. The same problem happens when the topic of home defense guns is discussed. Everybody fancies themselves an attorney or a marine-delta-SEAL-reconsniper instructor. Mention the use of a registered NFA device for defense and they start tearing their garments and foaming at the mouth. Why would someone want to use a registered NFA device in home defense anyway, though? Things like silencers and SBRs are just range toys, right?

The rest is here, if you're interested.
 
Just use a pistol, shotgun or ordinary rifle for home defense. If you ever did have to shoot an intruder, do you really want to explain how you are a trustee of a weapon in a special trust designed to evade CLEO sign-off, and which has been specially modified and registered with the BATFE to more effectively hunt down and terminate burglars? There's a good chance that you get away with it. There's a slight chance you don't. Who really knows. What I do know is that using NFA for home defense, will cost you more $$$, time and headache than its worth. Castle doctrine or no castle doctrine.

I am not willing to risk going to prison to protect myself or my family from an intruder. Why? Because I don't need to. The pistol I choose to use for home defense is more than adequate. It's easy for me to access. Holds 19 rounds, and easy enough for me to secure. As between a possible undetectable loss in hearing or prison time....guess which one I'm going to choose. I have plenty of other weapons I could choose to use for protection, and perhaps even an NFA weapon.

Part of survival is staying out of prison and holding onto my hard earned money which took countless hours, days and years of my life working my butt off for me to save.
 
Last edited:
It's not just the permanent hearing damage. Difficulty communicating with family, dispatcher, and police could get someone hurt.

But it sounds as though you think that a politically motivated prosecutor couldn't just as easily paint you as an ignorant hick, Rambo, or cop wannabe no matter what gun you choose. Likewise, a competetent defense counsel should have no trouble refuting those arguments and you shouldn't end up in court over a home defense shooting unless you did something really unusual or live in occupied territory.
 
But it sounds as though you think that a politically motivated prosecutor couldn't just as easily paint you as an ignorant hick, Rambo, or cop wannabe

Yes, Andrew, that is correct. I think it would be far more difficult a police officer, grand jury and/or prosecutor to make a big stink out of my 20 year old Glock 17 or CZ75B, versus my AC556 or a short barreled AR with a suppressor mounted to it. There's nothing too sexy about stock dull black pistols that don't have any doo-dads mounted to them. There's a good chance they might even have to examine the facts rather than become mesmerized by the weapon of choice before pursuing anything.
 
Andrew, understand that I do think semi-auto military style weapons have their time and place for defense. For example large scale civil unrest where you happen to live in the thick of it, break down of civilization - something along those lines. I just think handguns happen to be the best weapon of choice for defending a home, where shots aren't likely to span more than 30 feet.

5.56 just wouldn't be my round of choice at those distances, and a bulky SBR that is difficult to store/secure, a little more difficult (for me anyway) to use. Frankly, I'm simply more comfortable with a handgun. And, from a practical standpoint.....so is the wife - she's not going to stand for me wondering around the house with a suppressed SBR when things go bump in the night. To be completely honest, it's not just legal reasons, but some practical ones as well, that cause me to really gravitate toward semi-auto pistols for home defense.
 
I understand. From a technical standpoint, a carbine is easier to hit with, higher capacity, more powerful, and less likely to harm bystanders. But you have to choose the tool with which you are most proficient. If you own a carbine, you might consider taking some defensive carbine courses.
 
If I could afford a NFA item I would use it. My hearing is already shot I have to lip read half the time now when talking to people. The object of a home defense firearm is just that if a person is so worried about their choice of weapon that they are most profecient with being a hindrance should they survive the encounter then maybe they should just surrender to their attacker.

Me I will use what ever weapon increases my odds against the attacker(s).
 
This has been talked about a number of times. If you dont feel comfortable using a NFA weapon in defense of your loved ones in your own home, then dont.

Under that line of thinking you may not want to use hollowpoints either, cause you will be looked at as someone that WANTED to KILL.

I will use the most effective weapon available to me and deal with whatever the aftermath is. I feel that if the use of force is justified, the weapon used (baseball bat, Butcher knife or suppressed SBR) is not an important factor.
 
I sometimes use a suppressed Glock as a nightstand gun. I'm not concerned about the sophomoric,ignorant blather regarding legal consequences. There is no legal consequence to using a legal firearm with a legal suppressor attached, in a bona fide s.d. shooting.
 
I absolutely agree. But I think that those that are arguing there is a potential legal consequence are still failing to do a proper risk assessment. A real risk assessment means considering the likelihood of an event AND the potential severity of the consequences.

In this case that means that we start with the premise that you had to shoot someone in your own home and examine how likely it is that you would be charge, indicted, and convicted for some kind of wrong doing and the consequences of that versus the likelihood that using a different weapon would be less effective or result in hearing damage and the consequences. It looks something like this:

Jail: probability = low, severity = moderate, risk = low/moderate

Death: probability = low, severity = extremely high, risk = high

Hearing loss: probability = extremely high, severity = moderate, risk = high


Of course, different folks may view the probability and severity differently and apply their own scale but I think that many folks arguing against the use of NFA devices aren't really getting past the "scary guns bad" point.
 
I would think the entire purpose of a pistol silencer would be home defense. sure it would be fun at the range, but only really useful at home. when I do get a silencer, soon I hope, it will be for home-defense. maybe if I was in new England I would have different views, but I don't see people getting prosecuted for killing armed intruders "inside" their homes no matter what they use. if someone thinks that it is an issue, please prove it and maybe i'll change my mind. my HD guns have strong handloads and I wouldn't hesitate to use an SBR with a silencer in a scary sounding caliber(blackout)...

please find a case where any of this has come into play when protecting your home from an intruder.
 
Most homeowners use handguns, and it's only been recently that the younger generation has adopted AR actions as their first line choice.

So, finding a case in fact is going to be difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. BTW, the guy who used a shotgun and put some rounds thru the door didn't turn out so well, despite the VP's assurances it was a good method.

The issue is whether many even consider using a short barreled rifle at all, and the costs do come into play.

So, don't. Paying the stamp to force you to treat an AR as a rifle with all the loss of CCW use needs consideration. Rifles don't enjoy a lot of freedom compared to a CCW pistol.

Consider the alternative, the AR pistol. Exact same weapon in terms of ballistics, it just doesn't have a stock. At HD ranges accuracy isn't an issue. What many need to consider is how to use the weapon with it's specific issues to fire it accurately.

It's not a fact they must be held in some way against the shoulder, either. Holding it close across the chest with the sights held to eye level works, too. Adopt a shooting posture that enhances that specific gun's issues and learn to resolve them.

Entirely why I am building an AR pistol - the added benefit is that in my state I can use it in the Alternate hunting season where a rifle isn't allowed. Further, I can transport it and carry it the same as a handgun. A rifle has anti poaching restrictions against it. Some in other states can have truck guns ready to hand, in my state it's very questionable and leads an LEO to considering further charges. Very bad juju during hunting season to be cruising around with a loaded rifle in the front. It's called road hunting and it's illegal.

But a pistol in a case concealed ready to hand, not so much legally. If traffic stopped its really no issue here, just inform the officer by handing him your CCW license, done. What you carry will likely not even be mentioned. Plus you can transport across state lines at will, with a stamped SBR you must be in possession of ATF written permission, which at best must be renewed annually.

At home, all the benefits of a SBR without the legal entanglements of being an approved firearms possessor registered with the ATF.

So, yes, a short barreled weapon does have a lot of advantages, even more if it doesn't have a stock. And at HD ranges, the AR pistol is more than accurate enough.

Which leave the noise suppression issue still to be dealt with. It does need some solution.

The worst case scenario often brought up is someone breaking into your house while you are sound asleep. You struggle to awake, get up, grab a gun in the dark, and do what?

Dozens of different life threatening scenarios are always brought up, by the same guys who advise you on the legal liability of your deadly illicit weapon meant to deliberately maim a lost soul returning home from their drunken evening.

Yeah, sure.

I see it as a lot of other things not being done right to prevent it in the first place, you don't just wake up with a knife at your throat and your wife being accosted.

You will hear someone trying to defeat your defenses, and you should be more than past the point of calling 911 and securing your bedroom before they even get to you. Try installing some motion sensors and alarms before spending all the money on an expensive high dollar firearms solution to address the worst case scenario.

Keep a set of electronic earmuffs with the gun and call it good. $80 vs $200 +$800 for the suppressor + Trust fees + etc etc etc. Be that as it may, in my state you can use it for hunting, so, some justification for the cost exists. Or you could just use the e-muffs with the gain up to hear even more.

Goes right along with your infra red cell phone back for finding game. I could buy muffs and the I-reader for less than a silencer and have a lot more utility. At least I will see why my heating bills are up.

On gun forums you get a lot of gun centric solutions, but the reality is that HD is not gun solved, a gun is the tool of LAST resort and if you have other things should have been done or it's going very badly - which are even more extreme odds than a home invasion in the first place.

Lets get honest about it, if you are really worried about home invasion, you should have your home armored up to the point even the local SERT team knows they can't get in. NOBODY discusses that as the first option, they go straight to using a gun because you are forced to accept their last resort scenario.

It's all about internet one-upmanship, not a logical risk assessment of what could actually happen and where you need to improve your security.

Given the odds, don't steal your drug lord's stash or his girlfriend, and you have eliminated 95% of the risk.

That leaves a few other issues like leaving your doors unlocked, or opening it after dark just because someone knocked. Well, duh, did you not look to see who was there?

NOooo, we can't exercise common sense, you always wake up to a knife at your throat and your wife being accosted by leering thugs. Well, move to a different neighborhood, get a dog, and get a life already.

Keep your mental video in check and assess what's really going on. We did have a gang of thugs locally invade two homes last week. The first was a mistake, broad daylight, they left when they figured it out. Reading between the lines, the homeowners opened the door and let them in.

Second home one was killed on the spot. Stolen property was involved, the investigation is ongoing.

Don't take property from others, or their GF, and don't open the door to just anyone. Start with the basics and then when you finally get to what gun to use, you will likely know exactly what you need for that specific set of circumstances.

I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to get in.
 
if someone thinks that it is an issue, please prove it and maybe i'll change my mind. my HD guns have strong handloads and I wouldn't hesitate to use an SBR with a silencer in a scary sounding caliber(blackout)...

There was a case, I don't know it by name, but it was the one where the home owner executed an intruder. It was clear that the guy broke in to the man's home, but it was equally clear that the homeowner executed him because he was sick of getting robbed (or something like that). I think the homeowner was prosecuted and found guilty.

Tell me that the image of someone with a silencer screwed onto the end of a pistol causing death (even to an intruder) doesn't look like an execution..."just like on TV".
 
It doesn't. That was easy.

It is the physical evidence of your actions that will determine guilt or innocence. You still haven't provided an example of someone who used a scary gun legally but was somehow convicted.


Also, my silencer doesn't screw on.
 
"there was a case"? Okay, can we have a hint. The only intrusion cases I see even go to court is when the homeowner shoots through a window or a door, and they still get found not guilty in the end. But it depends on your state. But I find it good practice NOT to shoot through the front door regardless. I want a case, an ARMED intruder has broken INTO a home and was shot and killed/injured by homeowner, and homeowner was prosecuted. I don't care if he had a 22 or an m60 or a BMG, I just don't see it happening regardless of the weapon the homeowner weilded

I also don't care if the intruder had only a bat or a machine gun, just any old "armed" will do.

And no craziness, like homeowner ties up intruder and blows his head off in the basement. I just want a break IN, homeowner shoots gun, homeowner goes to jail.
 
Suppressors are quickly gaining popularity for home defense whether on a SBR or handgun. Seems like a good option considering the hearing concerns of discharging a firearm in a confined space like your home.

FAS1-SBD%2BSigAAC.jpg
 
This is the case I was thinking of:

A Minnesota man was convicted of premeditated murder yesterday for shooting and killing two teens who broke into his home in 2012. The prosecution claimed Byron Smith made it look as if he wasn't home, then waited for intruders; his home had been a target of break-ins in the past. (A Montana man was charged with murder this week in a remarkably similar case.) His lawyers argued Smith was defending himself, but the prosecution said he went too far by shooting cousins Haile Kifer and Nick Brady nine times.

Sorry, I couldn't think of the guy's name as I was writing my above response - I thought it was a pretty recent case that has been discussed here and who's fact pattern is familiar to most.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top