Springfield XD Forum banner

noise suppressor and self defense?

7K views 50 replies 17 participants last post by  Powerman 
#1 ·
Think a person would get raked over the coals if they used a "silenced" weapon in self defense? I've read every use of a machine gun for SD in modern times has resulted in a murder charge, even when it was a pretty clear case of SD.

I managed permanent hearing damage from shooting a 22lr in close quarters to finish off a squirrel. I've got the think a 40sw in my dinky house would be at least as bad and also damage my families hearing as well. I also wouldn't mind having a silenced hunting weapon.

I am strongly leaning towards a pinned silencer on a 300blk if I go this route, but would listen to other suggestions as well.
 
#3 ·
It could go either way.

The argument could be made--and strongly--that it's sole purpose is to protect the hearing of you and anyone else in your home...and the other side could try and portray you as a assassin wannabe.

Don't know of any cases offhand where they've been used in a SD shooting...whether that means that they were and nothing came of it, or that there just haven't been any instances...
 
#4 ·
Agree with Cuda. I believe a suppressor indoors is a great idea, but unfortunately perception feeds into it. I couldn't find information on pro's or con's legally.
 
#11 ·
"Machine gun"...for self defense?

Please elaborate.
It doesn't happen much. The case I read about was a guy legally transporting a class 3 full auto, then some biker goes all road-rage stalker, get a bud, etc.... It was the only gun he had. he was eventually found not guilty. The whole perception thing. "he mowed down 2 people with a machine gun!"
 
#13 ·
"IF" I have time, my h.d. gun is an AR with a suppressor. Will still be a bit loud since I don't have any subsonic ammo for it... (not even sure if they make 5.56 in subsonic!??) ...... anyway, it will be "less bad" than a non-suppressed rifle.

As far as "appearance"........ yeah, the lefty anti-gun people will try to spin that hard to say it is a murder weapon, but I think would be ultra important to (as earlier stated) make sure to stress over, and Over...and OVER again, that the suppressor was solely for the purpose of protecting the hearing of myself and those around me.
 
#15 ·
I don't want my kids to have tinnitus. Easy sell. Or all my guns used inside have them due to my hearing damage
 
#16 ·
Before I comment further, I would like for someone--ANYONE to point out where even a single instance of a bonafide, legitimate instance of SD with the use of a suppressor has resulted in charges being filed contrary to if they would not have been had a sound suppressor not been used.

Seems like most people tend to err on the emotional side of things, rather than the true and correct definition of the law.

If it is unlawful for you or I to utilize any weapon at our disposal, the same could be argued that the same police that arrested you would be unlawful for them to use while on duty.

Even the Government on numerous occasions have said that having select fire weapons were preferred. I used to have a requisition for either ICE or DHS saved on my computer that even said as much as they wanted select fire weapons for their agents.

To make this discussion more interesting, I would like if someone could just show or link how many SD/HD cases even remotely mention a firearm suppressor being used, however small.

It is possible in many locations that just the act of defending your family would result in charges being filed regardless of the weapon used, whether it is a knife, gun, baseball bat or whatever. Canada is well known for that.

My main point being a legally owned weapon is a legally owned weapon and for any lawful use.

Period.

Also, I do own a transferable machinegun. It is just as legal to own and use it in any manner as would be my XD40, my 12 gauge shotgun, or 16 inch cast iron skillet or Louisville slugger.

Actually, I could see how using a machinegun would be less likely to get someone charged for murder if someone was in their house threatening their lives. It would take a lot less for me to pull the trigger once for a quick burst than it would be to continue striking them repeatedly with a ball bat until they stopped advancing toward me or my loved ones.

This discussion comes up regularly and it always tends to go downhill from there.

The boogey man is going to get you if you use a machinegun to protect your home with.

For anyone that agrees with the sentence above, please show me links to newspaper articles and court dockets to show me otherwise because I have yet to see them, despite me having this same conversation countless times before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonnyuma
#35 ·
Seems like most people tend to err on the emotional side of things, rather than the true and correct definition of the law.
That is the concern here. A jury of action movie background with no real gun knowledge could "emotionally feel" that a silencer is something only used by bad guys = you are a bad guy.
 
#22 ·
I was not perfectly remembering a summation of the Fadden incident;


Gary Fadden sums it up today, "The mouse had run, and the cat was loose. Physical size was no deterrent. The gun was no deterrent with these people. If you pull a gun, you'd better be ready to use it."

Politically incorrect "assault weapons" make politically incorrect defendants. Though he didn't say it in so many words, prosecutor Jack Robbins' case against Fadden seemed to be, "I say, Muffy, people of breeding simply don't shoot criminals with machine guns in Fairfax County! Now, had he used a civilized weapon like a Browning Superposed ... and preferably shot him on the rise ... "

You and I know that Class III holders are the ultimate "card carrying good guys and gals." That particular card says they have been investigated for six months by the Federal government and been found trustworthy to possess machine guns. Unfortunately, most of the public in the jury pool, and most politically motivated prosecutors, don't know that. Every self-defense shooting I've run across with a Class III weapon, however justified, has at the very least ended with the shooter facing a grand jury. Asked what he thinks would have happened if he'd shot Hamilton with a Remington 870 Wingmaster instead, Fadden replies with certainty, "I would have gone home that night. I've told dozens of people since, 'Do not use a Class III weapon for personal defense."' Today, the guns Gary is likely to have in his car have neutral images: an M-1 .30 carbine, and a 10mm Glock 20 pistol.
 
#19 ·
Using a suppressed weapon for self-defense in your home would not be an issue since the criminal that entered your home would be proof enough that you didn't go out looking for trouble.

I'm actually looking at getting a suppressor for just this reason.
Sadly that's just not true anymore. You could shoot someone in your house and their still be a legal case. We always think a shooting will be clear cut in our favor but that's not the reality. Some states are much better than others to live in. If you lived in a state that allows civil suits in self defense shootings you better believe the family will go after you if they catch wind you have a suppressor. That doesn't mean you will be found guilty of anything but it does mean you're going to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees. Lose some friends and maybe your job because you're in court for homicide.

The general public is very naive about suppressors. Hollywood has ruined it for us. I mentioned to my wife I wanted to get a suppressor and her response was Jokingly, "why are you planning on killing someone" my wife isn't anti gun even. She just doesn't like them in the way I do.
 
#20 ·
I agree with titanic thunder that while the likelihood of being charged with murder for defending myself in my home is quite low in certain circumstances. But people can sue your for anything in civil court.

That's entirely different from being charged with homicide. There is criminal court (which is if they found wrong-doing in their investigation) and there is civil court if the family is suing you for wrongful death or something.

That is entirely different altogether.

Not saying you still couldn't lose your job, standing in the community or whatever because that too is likely. But the two are different nonetheless. And in turn, it is possible that you could turn around and sue your former employer too.

I also would like to congratulate whomever it was above for saying that the person(s) commiting the violent crime of breaking and entering and assault, rape, murder or whatever being referred to as the victim by the news.

That is spot on for how I feel too.

Anytime that I hear "the victim was shot while they were breaking into the home at 123 Elm Street......" shows just how stupid reporters are.
 
#21 ·
Someone is in your house without your permission and they have a weapon. You've warned them that you're armed, but they still tried to attack you.

Unless suppressors are illegal in your state, the issue isn't going to be whether or not you have a suppressor on your gun or not. The issue will be whether or not it was a justifiable shoot.

There would be no situation where the mere fact that your gun was suppressed would be the determining factor in whether or not you are charged or convicted just as it would make no difference what gun you used or what ammo you used as long as those guns and ammo are legal in your state.
 
#23 ·
Even though "silencers" are now legal in my state, the baggage they carry is still there I believe. IIRC, any crime commuted with a "silencer" tacks on a 30 year felony. I am not sure they got rid of that one when they were made legal. Maybe they decide to stick me for a reckless discharge or whatever because the BG runs off without leaving a definitive sign of ever being there or someone decides he wasn't actually in the house or some other crap....all of the sudden, I am in jail for the rest of my life because of the legal device intended to protect the hearing of my family.
 
#27 ·
Be sure you understand what constitutes "justified", as well.

Just because a prosecutor doesn't bring a case does not mean it was ruled justified...it just means he didn't think there was enough evidence to win a case against you. Quite often, unless he/she actually calls it as a justified use of force...you can be on the hook.

And, like it or not, they can still (attempt to) sue you, despite the castle doctrine laws. The judge may throw it out, but it will still run you thousands to get an attorney to represent you in front of that judge...

And they just may not throw it out...if the judge decides that your situation doesn't apply, then the trial can proceed.

There's an awful lot of grey areas written into laws...
 
#36 ·
Something that I haven't seen mentioned in here. I made it a habit to only prepare and stage SD firearms, with firearms I don't mind losing permanently into evidence. They're cheap, reliable, and easily replaced. If you used a suppressor for SD, wouldn't it likely end up in evidence as well, with little chance of getting it back? Not to mention, the paper trail for it would still lead to you even though you have no access to it?
 
#37 ·
Something that I haven't seen mentioned in here. I made it a habit to only prepare and stage SD firearms, with firearms I don't mind losing permanently into evidence. They're cheap, reliable, and easily replaced. If you used a suppressor for SD, wouldn't it likely end up in evidence as well, with little chance of getting it back? Not to mention, the paper trail for it would still lead to you even though you have no access to it?
Let me be blunt.

So f***ing what.

If it saved your life (and your hearing), isn’t it worth every last penny you spent on it, even if you never see it again?
 
#38 ·
I know it's an old circle jerk... But I can't stand... Oh but they will lock me up if say the wrong word... BS. Sky falling circle jerk.

You want to protect your hearing... Have e-muffs in your nightstand or use a suppressor. You afraid to use a suppressor... Then don't use a f'n suppressor. Afraid of your families hearing, then don't use a gun.

Afraid you'll be prosecuted, then don't use a gun. Afraid of civil suits, then put bars over all your doors and windows, have 2 dogs and flippin alarm system. Afraid of loosing your gun, then buy a hi-point.

FFS... Use it or don't use it, have it or don't have it, use your right to remain silent and legal representation... Or don't. Just stop whining about having to make a decision. We all have choices in life.
 
#39 ·
I’m actually contemplating carrying the P365 with an Omega 9k. Shouldn’t be too big. As for using it or not during a home invasion, I’m not worried about getting hammered in court. It’s my attorneys job to educate the judge/jury on reasons for my legal use while protecting my family.
 
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