Glock Talk banner

Does Anyone Use A NFA Item As A Primary?

3K views 46 replies 19 participants last post by  SurgicalOne 
#1 ·
I've read the unsupported "horror stories" that using a NFA somehow runs the risk of making a good shoot into a questionable one... & that it's a bad look pulling out a legal machine gun or SBR in front of a jury and explaining yourself.

Anyways... I've chosen my Scorpion SBR as my go to for home defense. The reasoning behind why seems obvious to me.

Does anyone use a suppressor on their go to home defense weapon? Or if anyone has the budget, use a machine gun? How about in their vehicle.

I know many will say their pistols with the shockwave braces & SB15's are just as good & less restricted (that all is true)... but I'm curious to know if anyone is putting a beloved NFA item (that irreplaceable time has been put into) at risk of being confiscated if it was ever used.

I have a video of my Scorpion up, 10k + rounds through it and it's still flawless.

View: https://youtu.be/cXkFUBfzLCE





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
See less See more
1 1
#2 ·
A good shoot is a good shoot. Right? I suppose it depends on where you live.
 
#3 · (Edited)
No, I don’t use an NFA item for defense. However, in my many many visits to the LGS I’ve talked to quite a few folks who say it depends on where you’re at as to how picky the jury can be in such a case. The best thing to use as a NFA item for defense though is a pistol caliber carbine/ sub gun like the CZ Scorpion. This way if you ever found yourself needing to explain yourself to a jury at least you picked a weapon who’s purpose is undeniably defense. Rifles can be seen as offensive weapons given the increased power of the cartridge.

Edit: some of those folks were LEOs and their perspective was largely what I included


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#4 ·
You can absolutely without question use a NFA firearm for HD. In fact, one would be inclined to use their suppressor so you won’t damage your hearing after you show the perp his last memory. Not to mention the advantage to have SBRs etc in a Home situation.. there is no legal ramifications so lock and load.

Using a NFA firearm for CCW or outside of your home would not be good.
 
#15 ·
Nothing quite like the sound of chambering a round in the 870 in pitch black darkness, a real attention getter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G19G384 and dudel
#16 ·
Someone said that the only sound a bad guy needs to hear from an 870 is the safety snapping off just before the large BANG!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pgg00
#18 ·
My NFA stuff stays locked up in the safe w/ loaded mags & suppressors attached. It could be used for defense w/ some advanced warning but I prefer to risk losing a less valuable firearm. Even in a good shoot there's a chance the gun gets lost, damaged, etc while in police custody.

My home defense gun is a run of the mill Sig I bought of some guy on the street. Not sure why he polished the serial number off. :dunno:
 
#23 ·
Then there's the real world.

So, when I teach legal classes on this, I usually bring up the case of Mondi v. Commonwealth, from just a few years ago.

A guy jumped Mondi in his driveway and Mondi got away, retreated into his house and warned the guy to stay out. The guy continued toward the house, clearly intending to come in and assault him - that was undisputed.

In Kentucky it is burglary to unlawfully enter or remain in a building for the purpose of committing an assault, or any other crime. In Kentucky, it is also the law that you are justified in using deadly force against anybody committing or attempting to commit a burglary of your dwelling. By the black and white, letter of the law, there could be no doubt Mondi was justified when he shot the guy to stop him from entering the house.

He went to jail, was charged with 1st degree assault, went to trial and the judge refused to instruct the jury that they could find the shooting justified as defense against burglary. He was sentenced to several years in prison. He appealed to the court of appeals and they said, "hey, it wasn't a burglary, he was just unlawfully entering for the purpose of committing an assault."

Mondi got lucky and while he was sitting in prison his lawyer petitioned the supreme court to review the court of appeals' decision and it did (that isn't a right, it's up to them). The Supreme Court pointed out that entering for the purpose of committing an assault is burglary and, therefore, Mondi was entitled to rely on the defense against burglary justification.

That's how an absolutely, no facts disputed, "good shoot" can work in the real world.

I don't think it's a good idea to make that any riskier, just because you think you look cool with a SBR/full-auto/etc. for home defense.

For me it honestly is all about function. A shoulder fired weapon is absolutely more accurate and easier to control than a pistol.

& a shorter barrel makes it easier to get around corners. Also give anyone else less real estate or a chance to grab your weapon.

& I tried this once at a shoot house


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#24 ·
Then there's the real world.

So, when I teach legal classes on this, I usually bring up the case of Mondi v. Commonwealth, from just a few years ago.

A guy jumped Mondi in his driveway and Mondi got away, retreated into his house and warned the guy to stay out. The guy continued toward the house, clearly intending to come in and assault him - that was undisputed.

In Kentucky it is burglary to unlawfully enter or remain in a building for the purpose of committing an assault, or any other crime. In Kentucky, it is also the law that you are justified in using deadly force against anybody committing or attempting to commit a burglary of your dwelling. By the black and white, letter of the law, there could be no doubt Mondi was justified when he shot the guy to stop him from entering the house.

He went to jail, was charged with 1st degree assault, went to trial and the judge refused to instruct the jury that they could find the shooting justified as defense against burglary. He was sentenced to several years in prison. He appealed to the court of appeals and they said, "hey, it wasn't a burglary, he was just unlawfully entering for the purpose of committing an assault."

Mondi got lucky and while he was sitting in prison his lawyer petitioned the supreme court to review the court of appeals' decision and it did (that isn't a right, it's up to them). The Supreme Court pointed out that entering for the purpose of committing an assault is burglary and, therefore, Mondi was entitled to rely on the defense against burglary justification.

That's how an absolutely, no facts disputed, "good shoot" can work in the real world.

I don't think it's a good idea to make that any riskier, just because you think you look cool with a SBR/full-auto/etc. for home defense.

For me it honestly is all about function. A shoulder fired weapon is absolutely more accurate and easier to control than a pistol.

& a shorter barrel makes it easier to get around corners. Also give anyone else less real estate or a chance to grab your weapo.

& I tried this once at a shoot house. 1 shot from my Glock without hearing protection (never again). Suppressors really can prevent hearing damage...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#25 ·
I think his post meant to show that it doesn't matter what is on the books.
When it comes down to it... it is really based off of 12 others own judgement. They can have past cases read to them, explained, and the laws repeated verbatim.

At the end of the day... a testimony from the dead victims crying daughter or something else could strike a cord in one of them.

& they say to hell with what's on the books. They believe in their heart they are making a moral judgement. And they may believe a gun turns you into an evil person. That you we not justified and you should have taken an ass whooping instead of turning the situation lethal.

Sounds like depending on where you live... damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#26 ·
Let me tell you how the real world works in this area. There has been several intruders in this area shot and dispatched this year. The last one a few weeks ago I still remember the news report. The last sentence in the news report "Police say no charges will be filed in the shooting".This is a free state. Several Pro Gun laws were pasted in the last year alone. Our state and local government don't have an issue with us protecting our lives.

I don't use any NFA weapons for defense. But if it comes down to it and that is my only choice. You can bet I am using one. Doesn't matter to me if you or anyone else likes it or not. I don't care if it looks cool or not. I will use any means necessary to to protect myself, my family, or others. Even if I have to use a stick.

You can run and lock your scary NFA weapon in the safe if you fear that you are going to get arrested. If someone breaks into your home. I just hope you survive the encounter.

Kentucky law I found. At least law according to the net. If this is true. Their law enforcement needs a little educating.

Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. This case has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]

The Kentucky High Court stated in Bliss, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]

The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The Bliss ruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."[19]
You're copying and pasting Kentucky law from 1822 applied to a case in 1852? :rofl: None of Kentucky's legal justification law existed in 1822. Our current justification statutes were adopted between 1974 and 2006.

I defend people in lawsuits over shooting cases in Kentucky, now. I've even defended members of my only family. In 15 years of doing that, I have never lost or settled a case. My wife wrote Mondi v. Commonwealth when she was working as staff attorney at the Kentucky Supreme Court; I got to watch the whole trial with her, which is why I recently turned down Mondi's lawyer (also a former police officer) when he asked me for a job. I teach classes on justified use of force to law enforcement several times a year for the last 15 years. I'd guess I've taught it over a dozen times to 3 LE agencies, this year alone

Sure, most people who claim self-defense have a pretty easy case. And some go to prison.

Nobody said you should die before using an NFA weapon for self-defense. This is a thread about whether one should be your "primary" self-defense gun.
 
#27 · (Edited)
If you would have read the article you would have read that it says the law was still in effect. :headscratch: Did you happen to read this part Einstein? " As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

I tried to have a nice conversation with you but you mistakenly think you are smarter than you actually are. Insulting me was not the right thing to do. All that I posted was a law I found on the net. Did I not post that it may not actually be correct? You try and mess with me and I will show you how smart you are. I have never lost a battle with someone of your type net jousting yet. Keep posting and I will keep shaming you.
With attorneys as thorough as you in Kentucky. I can understand how someone could be railroaded by the Justice system in Kentucky.
 
#28 ·
Then there's the real world.

So, when I teach legal classes on this, I usually bring up the case of Mondi v. Commonwealth, from just a few years ago.

A guy jumped Mondi in his driveway and Mondi got away, retreated into his house and warned the guy to stay out. The guy continued toward the house, clearly intending to come in and assault him - that was undisputed.
There was a similar situation in Cleveland a couple of years ago. Drug user robbing a homeowner. The judge instructed the jury to ignore castle law. The his conviction was overturned on appeal. Basically, if they for some reason want to jamb you up they will. In the end it boils down to how much can you afford to spend.
 
#43 ·
If you live in California or any of the other unfortunate liberal states, just use this weapon and your chances of prosecution will be greatly diminished.

Note: Make sure to use the soft end in case the jury has a vendetta against you like some here have mentioned. I wouldn’t want any of you to get the cold long arm of the law just because you thought it was right to protect yourself.

 
#44 ·
If you live in California or any of the other unfortunate liberal states, just use this weapon and your chances of prosecution will be greatly diminished.

Note: Make sure to use the soft end in case the jury has a vendetta against you like some here have mentioned. I wouldn’t want any of you to get the cold long arm of the law just because you thought it was right to protect yourself.
I feel bad for all firearm owners that are in the states that have such strict gun control laws. Everything about firearm ownership is stacked against you.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top