SBR Question

[Ken Ford]

It costs little more to form a trust, and there would be NO legal problems ever for wifey to hold/possess/use any NFA item in the trust.

As the NFA approval is about a year now, just cancel the application (ATF will refund the 200 bucks) form a trust with HeavyD, and resubmit for the SBR stamp.

I see no issues here either to be on the safe side.

I was only addressing the issue of using what was readily available to defend ones self.
Best thing would to have “something else” readily available. LOL

 

[Ken Ford]

Wow, you're sure it "WOULD" be a felony for a non-NFA person to grab somebody else's registered NFA weapon in the midst of a life-threatening emergency (home invasion robbery in progress for example) and use that tool to repel the attackers? That's not even a question in your mind, but you're sure of it?

Nah, I don't think it's anything like that. Not even close. At best, it's a "could be" based on a totality of circumstances, including how much training she's had on that weapon, whether other guns are her primary designated home defense gun and she just happened to choose her husband's SBR instead even though it's NOT something she considers one of "her" defensive firearms normally, whether any part of the weapon was configured or selected with her in mind, the location of the gun's storage, whose stuff is with it and all around it, etc.


NEXT ISSUE: You say a woman's unauthorized possession of her husband's NFA weapon "could potentially" negate (cancel-out, end, render useless) her self-defense claim.

Why would you say that?

Where in Georgia's laws does it say that you don't have the affirmative defense of self-defense (stopping forcible felonies in progress, defending your castle, etc.) if you use a weapon you're not supposed to have in the first place?

There's a law that says you lose the statutory grant of IMMUNITY from PROSECUTION, but I don't see any law that says you lose the affirmative defenses found in Code sections 16-3-20 through 16-3-24.

Now, I agree that immunity is a good thing to have, and to keep.
I'd rather have an immunity hearing for my client than a felony trial where we have to put up our defense for the jury's consideration.

And, I think a lady who knows how to shoot ought to have a gun that she possesses, either exclusively or jointly with her husband, as a self-defense tool. She should not count on having access to a gun that only her husband possesses to defend herself and the home in his absence.

I agree that the BEST and SAFEST course of action here is, if this SBR is really intended for home defense by any adult in that household, to go the NFA trust route and name all adults in the home as Trustees.

While sometimes I disagree with some of your opinions, I think I agree whole heartedly here.

 

[Ken Ford]

Serious question, if you legally shoot a home intruder with a suppressed firearm, and remove the suppressor before the police arrive, have you broken any law?

I don’t see how, you would probably holster it or place it in a safe place after the incident.
Maybe unload and make safe before they arrive, all would reasonable.
Now you start changing barrels, and materially changing the gun itself? Then you would have problems.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

As to the wisdom of using an NFA-registered super-deadly evil black weapon for self-defense, I'd say there's some additional risk there. Risk that the detectives and prosecutors might assume that you're a dangerous and evil person based on the kind of gun you chose, and ignore your perfectly reasonable self-defense story.

See the "Gary Fadden" incident as written by Massad Ayoob in "The Ayoob Files".
Here's a link where the article is reproduced on another forum.

https://www.spyderco.com/forumII/viewtopic.php?t=42310

QUOTE:

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."'

P.S. After being acquitted at trail, McFadden had to extra long and hard for years to pay off a $50,000 debt over his legal fees.
Eventually he became the president of Al Mar Knives, after the death of Mr. Mar.
Fadden still runs the Al Mar knife company to this day.

 

[Lazarus]

NEXT ISSUE: You say a woman's unauthorized possession of her husband's NFA weapon "could potentially" negate (cancel-out, end, render useless) her self-defense claim.

Why would you say that?

Where in Georgia's laws does it say that you don't have the affirmative defense of self-defense (stopping forcible felonies in progress, defending your castle, etc.) if you use a weapon you're not supposed to have in the first place?

There's a law that says you lose the statutory grant of IMMUNITY from PROSECUTION, but I don't see any law that says you lose the affirmative defenses found in Code sections 16-3-20 through 16-3-24.

Now, I agree that immunity is a good thing to have, and to keep.
I'd rather have an immunity hearing for my client than a felony trial where we have to put up our defense for the jury's consideration.

And, I think a lady who knows how to shoot ought to have a gun that she possesses, either exclusively or jointly with her husband, as a self-defense tool. She should not count on having access to a gun that only her husband possesses to defend herself and the home in his absence.

I agree that the BEST and SAFEST course of action here is, if this SBR is really intended for home defense by any adult in that household, to go the NFA trust route and name all adults in the home as Trustees.

You might be on to something. I dont think this instance is much different from a convicted felon using a firearm for self defense and there is case law saying that a convicted felon can use a gun in some circumstances. So while I dont think the use of the gun would negate self defense the wife is putting herself at risk with the ATF.

 

[ReganR6]

Not sure what the problem is here. Get a Trust, put her on, and then have no worries about anything??

 

[Lazarus]

Not sure what the problem is here. Get a Trust, put her on, and then have no worries about anything??

The issue is the same thats plague thousands of trustees since 41F, not wanting multiple people, especially wives () to jump through the hoops of pics and prints. My wife would probably be willing to do it but I would have to hear about it every time. LOL

 

[ReganR6]

The issue is the same thats plague thousands of trustees since 41F, not wanting multiple people, especially wives () to jump through the hoops of pics and prints. My wife would probably be willing to do it but I would have to hear about it every time. LOL

Fair enough! I did not think about that. What about amending the trust once the item comes through to add someone? Is that not a possibility anymore?

 

[Lazarus]

Fair enough! I did not think about that. What about amending the trust once the item comes through to add someone? Is that not a possibility anymore?

I sure hope so because thats what I did.

 

[Sneakypete]

I sure hope so because thats what I did.

Ditto, can we get a legal ruling on this?