Right now I’m waiting to get my stamp, it went pending back in early December. I’m wondering if y’all have any wisdom for me concerning whether there might be any reason (legal liability, etc.) not to use a NFA registered SBR as my go-to home defense gun. I have other solid AR options available and currently filling that role, but obviously an 11.5" BCM would be almost ideal for home defense. What say you? Thanks.
This issue has been discussed here at great length.
If it’s a defensive and legal shoot, it should not matter what weapon you use to defend yourself.
I prefer to use the best tool for the situation. Inside my home, that would be either a suppressed 12.5" SBR or Glock 17.
Yes, thanks, I read that one, but I did not see any comments in the thread regarding the issue of a higher level of legal liability. I know that every round that I fire carries a potential liability for whatever/whoever it strikes, but my concern is if there is a potentially higher risk of liability (I may be using my terms incorrectly as I am not a lawyer) in front of a judge/jury if I am being sued and evidence against me is a “NFA Registered SBR with a 6+ month waiting period” as opposed to a more (supposedly) benign 16+" AR-15.
Could the fact that I went to the trouble of purchasing an NFA item that required a 6+ month waiting period be construed as showing some kind of “pre-meditation” or whatever? I don’t know, maybe that’s a question that can’t be answered, and if it is I’m willing to hear that. I just want the best tools for the job, but would like to consider the potential risks of having to make use of said tools.
^^^^
A defense attorney could better answer that question. But my initial reaction … you use whatever tool is available to defend yourself. Shovel, Glock, Car, SBR, whatever. A defense attorney can argue anything to make you look stupid… doesnt mean anyone will buy his s–t though.
Or, a Defence Attorney worth a shit could say, “My client, after the scrutiny of the federal government over a 6 month investigation was deemed suitable enough to own said firearm.”
Where as “bubba” can walk into the local Bass Pro shop and walk out a hardened operator. I think this situation has been over thought and over discussed. But that’s just me…
I am not a lawyer or anything. However, if you are the attacker then, yes it can be construed as “premeditated.” Though, since you are defending yourself, I do not see how it could be considered premeditated. Any gun purchase, and then defensive use with that gun, could be considered premeditated murder- if the attacker dies. I would not let anything pass the Libertards though. I have seen a Youtube video where one guy claims that all gun owners are insane and premeditated murderers.
So, I think any legally owned gun will have the same “risks” of charges for defensive use if the person dies. I worry about using my 16" AR for home defense since I live in CA…:rolleyes:
About as much as obtaining your CHL being misconstrued as premeditation.
If you go out and hunt a person then there’s premeditation.
If you have some unknown person enter your house and you defend it, any assertion that there was premeditation would have to be followed with accusations of precognition.