What Do You Expect With an "Assault Rifle"?

[EnochGale]

This came up at lunch with the gun crowd.

Many of us have a long gun as a defensive arm for the house and safe room.

Do you expect that you would have more trouble legally with an AR-15 or AK-47 than a blander looking gun like a lever action, Mini-14, etc. ?

I certainly know the differences but do you think the evil "assault rifle" is more of a legal risk if you used it and the shooting was marginal/anti gun DA or the like?

 

[TearsOfRage]

In theory it shouldn't matter, but if there is any question about your intentions or your state of mind, it will be used against you.

 

[Dead]

Intent is impossible to prove!!!

But, the government wants to makes it seem otherwise..... total BS..

With drug laws if you have x amount, you are charged with "intent to sell".. How can they prove intent?

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]

[This message has been edited by Dead (edited September 25, 2000).]

 

[G-Freeman]

Nope. Not yet. In my state, and I assume you refer to a true home invasion and consequent dead bad guy, it still wouldn't matter much what particular tool was utilized.
Also, the farther from large metropolitan areas the better.

 

[Dennis Olson]

A rifle, ANY rifle, is the absolute LAST firearm I would EVER use for a home invasion.

------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken

 

[PreserveFreedom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A rifle, ANY rifle, is the absolute LAST firearm I would EVER use for a home invasion.[/quote]
Depends who is invading, how many, and if they have those stupid blue hats on or not.

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Sadly, I'd wager that in most parts of the country, an 'ugly' gun will give you a bit more grief with the jury.

Having said that, I still wouldn't change my choice for that reason alone. 'Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6'.

I'll use an 870 generally, but in a rural area I would probably choose the AR / AK. Depends on neighbors, others in the home, ammunition, etc., IMHO.

Regards from AZ

 

[hkg3]

PreserveFreedom

If they have stupid blue hats, I'll be going out the back door dressed like a stupid tossed salad...With my long guns.

------------------
Gun control started the Revolutionary War!..."itcta alea est"

 

[Donny]

It seems that the anti-crowd keeps trying to dismiss the 2nd as being a State right.

Let's, for the sake of arguement, assume that's correct.

The State then, has the ability to issue fully-automatice firearms to all it's officers, as it sees fit. And generally they procure these weapons from whom? RIGHT, the Federal guvmint, through surplus armament programs, or some other bs to create a standing Army(another issue I know).

And if that's the case, then shouldn't they be using the military's definition of an assault weapon, since it's from them that they're obtaining many of their firearms?

The military has a different description, and definition of an assault weapons, than do the nay sayers.

Ever see a fully combat ready group with semi-only firearms (not including sidearms, of course)?

Possibly Beirut, prior to the truck-bomb that killed all those Marines...

How about Granada, or Panama, or Kuwait, or---

It ain't gonna be that way, and we all know this.


[This message has been edited by Donny (edited September 26, 2000).]

 

[Nestor Rivera]

In the criminal court probably not a prob, but in civil court where the almight TV can sway any jury pool it may be come an issue.

Also most rifle rounds have a great deal of liabality by virtue of flight distance.

If long arms are pefered then get a shot gun or a pistol calibur ( my choice is the M1-Carbine)

 

[Gunslinger]

Picture a prosecutor (or worse an ambulance chaser in a civil matter) waving an AR15 over his head while presenting his case. Now picture him waving a .22 Chipmonk.
It could make a difference but as Jeff said I would not let it bias my home defnse choices.

------------------
Gunslinger

I was promised a Shortycicle and I want a Shortycicle!

 

[George Hill]

Moving to Rifles.

 

[Grapeshot]

Hi Enoch,

I am no expert on this but I can tell you that my brother is an attorney and we have talked about juries and gun cases alot. I think he would agree that you should think about the prejudices jury members are likely to carry with them into the case - i.e. most people aren't very gunny, and they think "ugly black guns" are for "Rambos". Don't forget "guns should only be kept for hunting" (even though it's not true!).

For this reason, I am going to use a 30-30 carbine. Of course it isn't as good as a semi, but then in the civil suit which will be filed by the criminal's family, it may make a differnce since only 51% of the evidence will be needed to burn me for protecting myself.

 

[Coronach]

Absolutely it will influence the outcome of any legal proceedings, the question is to what extent. Remember, you have 3 fights to survive:

1. The actual fight: how much better is an 'assault weapon' at deterring/stopping a home invasion than a similarly chambered 'hunting' rifle or- better- a shotgun?

2. (possible) Criminal trial: yes, I know. It shouldn't matter a wit if you ended your robber's life with an AR-15 or if you used your grandfather's Parker...but can you honestly look at the newspapers or TV these days and say with certainty that it won't? What if the judge and/or prosecutor in your area is an elected official (most are), is facing reelection and needs to assure his left-wing constituents that he is anti-gun? What about the jury? These are 12 people too stupid to avoid jury duty. How many of them are soccer moms? Still feel comfortable? I don't.

3. (possible) Civil trial: cut to the courtroom: the same brain-dead cattle are in the jury box, but the best shyster attorney is representing the dearly departed's family, and they want all of your money for daring to defend yourself. How comfortable do you feel now?

I knwo its wrong, I know its silly, but it's reality. You have 3 fights to survive...you gotta survive the first to get to the other 2, I agree...but the other two are very very real and you aren't much good to your family if you kill the intruder but lose your house and possessions doing it. It can happen- it *has* happened, I assure you. Don't think so? well...you prepare yourself to survive the worst-case scenario in fight #1...why not in fights 2 and 3?


Do the job with the most PC weapon you have that will still reliably do the job.

Mike

------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein

 

[Zeebrahed]

I actually look forward to jury duty....maybe I am just too stupid to avoid it. Jury duty is another tool in the pocket of those that work to preserve freedom. Ever heard of jury nullification?

 

[Dagny]

Sorry Guys, but I beg to differ from those who may choose "evil assault rifles" and agree with Coronach's advice of choosing the most PC gun in my collection. A long squirrel gun: 41 caliber shooting a 220 grain frangible projectile at 1200 fps. At 700 ft lbs it delivers more energy than either a hot 10mm or 45acp or .357 and nearly as much as a 44magnum.

Yes, a 410 shotgun!

But Mr. Prosecuter, it's my old squirrel gun from when I was a youngster.

[This message has been edited by Dagny (edited September 27, 2000).]

 

[Coronach]

You're the exception rather than the rule, Zebrahed...most people try to avoid jury duty (understandably so...you get paid peanuts AND you often lose work income...some folks don't have the luxury of being able to do that for long), and thus what you are left with are the few duty-minded citizens and the rest of the chaff...and all too often skillful attorneys end up keeping the duty-minded (read: conservative) jurors off the jury- in a case like the one we discuss they'd never convict/award damages. They know this, and after they figure out who the RKBA/conservative/personal-responsibility jurors are they will do everything to get 'em out. Then you're left with soccer moms and boneheads, mostly.

Obviously this tendency will vary from area to area, but thats the way the general trend seems to run. Sucks but its true.

Mike

------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein

[This message has been edited by Coronach (edited September 27, 2000).]