Legal problems using a Ak?

[Symmetry]

A good thread on the legal ramifications of your "image" during self defense:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...Question/page2

Juries are human, and they do look at a defendant with their own bias'. For example in the more recent Michael Dunn shooting, "most" of the jurors were disturbed that Dunn possessed a suppressor and that he fired so many rounds into the car. Only two of the jurors were unaffected by the possession of the suppressor in their deliberations. After the trial, one juror thought that the suppressor indicated that Dunn was likely shooting his firearms in locations that were illegal, and at things that a normal person wouldn't shoot at. Another juror thought that the suppressor indicated that Dunn was a wannabe assassin. It is up to you on how you choose to proceed with your own self defense, but the opinions of society(the jury) will determine the fate of you and your family. Unlike a law enforcement shooting which falls under the realm of the 4th amendment and the protections of qualified immunity, a civilian shooting is judged more heavily on the conduct of the shooter and the equipment that they use.

In todays world you have at least three fights to win in a self defense case. One, you must win the gun fight so that you and your family are not killed/wounded. Two, you must win the criminal proceedings so that you don't go to prison and leave your family broke and fending for themselves. Criminal defense costs a fortune in such cases, and the more complex the case the more money you will lose. Most defendants end up broke, and from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt such as in the Zimmerman case. Cut and dry defense cases tend to be quick, and relatively cheap for the defendant. Three, you must win the fight against civil litigation should you win the criminal case. The civil case that the family of the perp will bring on you will be based on the preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if you are deemed to be negligent by the majority opinion(not unanimous) then they win the lawsuit against you and again......you are your family will be broke and life will be hell.

Just some things to think about before you reach for the SBR, suppressed AR and arm the claymores in your yard.

[TGS]

In all fairness, he'd be in trouble in urban CA no matter which weapon he uses. To modify a saying , "eez gun! Eez not liked in Granola Republik!"

Likely sound bytes from anti DA:

1911 pistol-" Big Deadly .45."
30-30 lever action-" wannabe cowboy"
12 gauge - "assault shotgun".


And so on, and so forth.

That's how I'm approaching it, as well. If they want to villianize you, they'll find a way to do it. Most peoples' social media is probably far more damaging to their reputation in court than what gun they used in a shooting, anyway.

[Kyle Reese]

That was exactly my thought process. I had a friend tell me today I should get rid of my underfolder for a AR because the ak would most likely get me in trouble if I ever had to use it..

Your friend is right. Send it to my FFL for proper disposal.

J/K

[LSP552]

A good thread on the legal ramifications of your "image" during self defense:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...Question/page2

Juries are human, and they do look at a defendant with their own bias'. For example in the more recent Michael Dunn shooting, "most" of the jurors were disturbed that Dunn possessed a suppressor and that he fired so many rounds into the car. Only two of the jurors were unaffected by the possession of the suppressor in their deliberations. After the trial, one juror thought that the suppressor indicated that Dunn was likely shooting his firearms in locations that were illegal, and at things that a normal person wouldn't shoot at. Another juror thought that the suppressor indicated that Dunn was a wannabe assassin. It is up to you on how you choose to proceed with your own self defense, but the opinions of society(the jury) will determine the fate of you and your family. Unlike a law enforcement shooting which falls under the realm of the 4th amendment and the protections of qualified immunity, a civilian shooting is judged more heavily on the conduct of the shooter and the equipment that they use.

In todays world you have at least three fights to win in a self defense case. One, you must win the gun fight so that you and your family are not killed/wounded. Two, you must win the criminal proceedings so that you don't go to prison and leave your family broke and fending for themselves. Criminal defense costs a fortune in such cases, and the more complex the case the more money you will lose. Most defendants end up broke, and from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt such as in the Zimmerman case. Cut and dry defense cases tend to be quick, and relatively cheap for the defendant. Three, you must win the fight against civil litigation should you win the criminal case. The civil case that the family of the perp will bring on you will be based on the preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if you are deemed to be negligent by the majority opinion(not unanimous) then they win the lawsuit against you and again......you are your family will be broke and life will be hell.

Just some things to think about before you reach for the SBR, suppressed AR and arm the claymores in your yard.

Very well said. Like buying real estate, it's about location. Here in LA, not a problem. But I would not choose one as a primary home defense tool in a ban state, even if legally owned. You have to remember that the jury pool's knowledge and thoughts about "assault rifles" are probably coming from CNN. It's a sad commentary to have to worry about politics and economics when considering a defensive tool, but I believe it's prudent to do so when you are behind enemy lines.

Ken

[GardoneVT]

Very well said. Like buying real estate, it's about location. Here in LA, not a problem. But I would not choose one as a primary home defense tool in a ban state, even if legally owned. You have to remember that the jury pool's knowledge and thoughts about "assault rifles" are probably coming from CNN. It's a sad commentary to have to worry about politics and economics when considering a defensive tool, but I believe it's prudent to do so when you are behind enemy lines.

Ken

Why not use the "scary" equipment?

Think of it this way: whether one uses a suppressed AR which is legally configured or great grand-dads over and under coach gun, in an anti rights area the argument that the defendant used a death ray will be offered anyway- the specific gun in question is irrelevant.

A DA could easily say the heirloom 12 gauge break action was a "Deadly ,Elephant Hunting Gun inhumanely used to blast poor Mr. Three M. Strikes"

Use hollowpoint ammo? "Dum Dum mankiller bullets".

Use a DAO revolver? "Dirty Harry wanna-be"

[TGS]

Why not use the "scary" equipment?

Think of it this way: whether one uses a suppressed AR which is legally configured or great grand-dads over and under coach gun, in an anti rights area the argument that the defendant used a death ray will be offered anyway- the specific gun in question is irrelevant.

A DA could easily say the heirloom 12 gauge break action was a "Deadly ,Elephant Hunting Gun inhumanely used to blast poor Mr. Three M. Strikes"

Use hollowpoint ammo? "Dum Dum mankiller bullets".

Use a DAO revolver? "Dirty Harry wanna-be"

Yup, they'll find a way.

Zimmerman was a hispanic dude that helped out black kids in after school programs and even pushed for the prosecution of a white police officer in what was believed to be police abuse against a black person. Even his ex-wife who publicly criticizes him for multiple things, to include anger issues, ardently defies Zimmerman having a hint of racism in him.

He used an unassuming, common pistol.

The prosecution, Obama and media still had no problem painting him however the hell they wanted, even though there was absolutely zero basis, whatsoever, for their remarks and demonstrable, objective evidence to counter it. And you know what's more? He wasn't even "behind enemy lines," as some of you like to put it.

In the end, he was cleared because a good shoot is a good shoot.

If the prosecution wants to paint you in a bad light, they'll have no problem doing it, no matter what gun you use. You're talking about professionals whose income and feeding their family resides on their ability to destroy people's lives. If they think it's beneficial to their case, they'll make you into a villain regardless.

So, screw it. I'm using my AR15 for home defense. I'm not going to pretend that pandering to liberal mindsets and using a 30-30 lever gun is going to be the deciding factor in keeping me out of jail when I shoot someone.

[LSP552]

Why not use the "scary" equipment?

Think of it this way: whether one uses a suppressed AR which is legally configured or great grand-dads over and under coach gun, in an anti rights area the argument that the defendant used a death ray will be offered anyway- the specific gun in question is irrelevant.

A DA could easily say the heirloom 12 gauge break action was a "Deadly ,Elephant Hunting Gun inhumanely used to blast poor Mr. Three M. Strikes"

Use hollowpoint ammo? "Dum Dum mankiller bullets".

Use a DAO revolver? "Dirty Harry wanna-be"

Everyone is free to use what they will. I said if it were me, I wouldn't do the AK thing in a ban state. I'd have my short barrel bird and deer hunting shotgun loaded appropriately for home invaders. As far as handguns, just about every law enforcement agency in the US uses hollow points and that is so easy to defend.

The DA and civil attorneys can say whatever they wish. Your point in response can be easy or hard to make. Do you honestly think that your changes of not being indicted or civilly raped in a ban state are the same with a 18" slug gun with buckshot vs a suppressed AR? Why take that chance if you don't have to?

I'm not one of those who believe that simple modifications/improvements to a stock gun will send you to prison. But I'd be willing to bet there is difference in perception in some places between an evil black rifle and granddads hunting gun. Just my opinion.

Ken

[TGS]

Everyone is free to use what they will. I said if it were me, I wouldn't do the AK thing in a ban state. I'd have my short barrel bird and deer hunting shotgun loaded appropriately for home invaders. As far as handguns, just about every law enforcement agency in the US uses hollow points and that is so easy to defend.

The DA and civil attorneys can say whatever they wish. Your point in response can be easy or hard to make. Do you honestly think that your changes of not being indicted or civilly raped in a ban state are the same with a 18" slug gun with buckshot vs a suppressed AR? Why take that chance if you don't have to?

I'm not one of those who believe that simple modifications/improvements to a stock gun will send you to prison. But I'd be willing to bet there is difference in perception in some places between an evil black rifle and granddads hunting gun. Just my opinion.

Ken

Grand dads hunting gun?

If you're talking about the theoretical ban state "behind enemy lines" that will enslave you for evil black weapons, then a short barreled 12ga shotgun is not going to fit their definition of grand dads hunting gun any more than an AR15 would.

What you have there is a sawed off tactical shotgun, similar to models used by elite close quarters combat units and criminal elements, to include MS13, the KKK and the Genovese crime family. What on Earth could a law-abiding citizen who doesn't prey on minorities need one of those for?

[GardoneVT]

Everyone is free to use what they will. I said if it were me, I wouldn't do the AK thing in a ban state. I'd have my short barrel bird and deer hunting shotgun loaded appropriately for home invaders. As far as handguns, just about every law enforcement agency in the US uses hollow points and that is so easy to defend.

The DA and civil attorneys can say whatever they wish. Your point in response can be easy or hard to make. Do you honestly think that your changes of not being indicted or civilly raped in a ban state are the same with a 18" slug gun with buckshot vs a suppressed AR? Why take that chance if you don't have to?

I'm not one of those who believe that simple modifications/improvements to a stock gun will send you to prison. But I'd be willing to bet there is difference in perception in some places between an evil black rifle and granddads hunting gun. Just my opinion.

Ken

If there is a difference, it's not enough to matter. If a DA hates suppressed AR15s , they'll also hate wood stock 12 gauge shotguns. The kind of person who thinks no honest man needs more then ten rounds, honestly thinks no honest man needs to own a gun at all.

That, after all, is why a citizen /LEO is being prosecuted for a just shoot in the first place.

[Symmetry]

Yup, they'll find a way.

Zimmerman was a hispanic dude that helped out black kids in after school programs and even pushed for the prosecution of a white police officer in what was believed to be police abuse against a black person. Even his ex-wife who publicly criticizes him for multiple things, to include anger issues, ardently defies Zimmerman having a hint of racism in him.

He used an unassuming, common pistol.

The prosecution, Obama and media still had no problem painting him however the hell they wanted, even though there was absolutely zero basis, whatsoever, for their remarks and demonstrable, objective evidence to counter it. And you know what's more? He wasn't even "behind enemy lines," as some of you like to put it.

In the end, he was cleared because a good shoot is a good shoot.

If the prosecution wants to paint you in a bad light, they'll have no problem doing it, no matter what gun you use. You're talking about professionals whose income and feeding their family resides on their ability to destroy people's lives. If they think it's beneficial to their case, they'll make you into a villain regardless.

So, screw it. I'm using my AR15 for home defense. I'm not going to pretend that pandering to liberal mindsets and using a 30-30 lever gun is going to be the deciding factor in keeping me out of jail when I shoot someone.

One thing to remember is that a DA/ADA/USAA/USA will throw many points(some logical, some ludicrous), out there to get a shotgun effect and see what sticks with a diverse jury pool. Ultimately, it is that jury......often composed of liberal, or moderately minded individuals who will decide if you and your family will be destroyed or not. I have been in LE for almost 20 years now, and a court liaison to my agency for much of that from coast to coast. From those cases where I specifically remember that the weapon, equipment, and tactics went beyond what an objectively reasonable person would consider to be a "model citizen defending his family", many of those defendants(not all) served jail time and/or lost most of their wealth due to all the criminal and civil litigation. Those cases that ended well for the defendant, were solid cases of a model citizen defending life(not property) with a clearly established case of deadly force needed to resolve the situation, urgency of action taken, and lack of alternative methods of fixing the situation(does the jury think you really needed to shoot them?). Conduct does effect a jury's decision. Did you give the perp every opportunity to retreat, did you shoot the perp in the dark, did you use cover/concealment before engaging(indicating that you could have evaded/escaped), did you take the time to put on body armor instead of locking your doors and calling the police?......these are all questions and considerations posed by actual judges in cases. And yes, weapons and equipment have been equally scrutinized. Don't get me started on race baiting.

I'm not saying that using an AR for defense is a bad idea, I'm just getting everyone to think about their own personal defensive situation based on their needs and what the society around them may think. If you have a strong antigun political climate around you(this will be your jury pool)......you might want to use a sporter-type pump shotgun and be very careful with your tactics. Equally so if you live in jury pool with strong racial divides and you happen to shoot a perp of a different race. I think you will be very hard pressed to find a jury pool that will back a mindset of doing anything to win the fight. Self defense must be a very well thought out plan ahead of time to not only cover ensuring a victorious fight, but a victorious aftermath. Be smart, show restraint when objectively reasonable, and remember bad decisions in split seconds can hurt you and your loved ones for decades.