Defensive Carry banner

Risk in using "assault weapons" for home defense?

4K views 35 replies 32 participants last post by  OPFOR 
#1 ·
My question is essentially the thread title. Does anyone have any experience or anecdotal evidence to indicate that a homeowner would be at greater legal risk by planning in-home defense around an AR carbine, "assault shotgun," or other non-handgun optimized for fighting?

Assuming an otherwise "good shoot," is the defender more likely to have legal defense problems just because he used his carbine rather than his 1911?
 
#2 ·
A neighbor and local LEO is the individual who actually talked me into rounding off my HD options with a BushMaster AR.

After talking about SHTF scenarios where the AR would come out (I already have a 12ga coach gun, a 30-30, and various pistols.), I'm comfortable not worrying about legal matters if the AR becomes a 'must'...at that point we'll have bigger problems on the horizon.

Stay armed...hope the AR won't be necessary...stay safe!
 
#4 ·
I wouldn't worry about an AR or AK causing a problem legally if you had to use it. What I would be worried about with either of them is over penetration causing injury to an innocent party.
 
#25 ·
I agree. A good friend who is an 18 year LEO (highly qualified; Firearms Instructor, Swat Team, ect.) had a ND while dry firing before a IPSC match we were going to and shot completely though his house with a 9mm 115 gr. FMJ. It hit his neighbors siding but did not penetrate through the particle board. On it's path it hit the bottom of his wood kitchen cabinet, bath tub liners and the door leading to the garage before exiting his house. No way would I use a .223 AR for HD.
Keep my 9mm & .45 loaded with Speer gold dots and the 870 with 7 shot to keep the rounds in the house if I ever have to use them. JMO

In defence of my friend, ND's happen quite often and by highly experienced firearms owners. A weapon needs to be treated as Loaded and Dangerous at ALL times.
 
#5 ·
My only concern would be over penetration. I live in a high density neighborhood and am concerned that my shots would go through my walls and into nearby house. Or worse a nearby neighbor. Even if shooting the BG was ruled justifible, you could run into problems if your bullet shot a neighbor. Of course you face that same problem with a lot of shotgun and pistol rounds too. But if I lived in a more rural setting, I would definately consider adding something like an AR to my defense arsenal. That's my $0.02 worth.
 
#6 ·
If the either the Prosecutor or the Civil Attorney think that they can make you look a little blood-thirsty or nutsy, they will. Hopefully you live where there are pretty good laws protecting homeowners in their home.

That said, I wouldn't hesitate to use my AR for defensive purposes. My goto is my pistol, but only because I've handled it WAYYY more so I'm more comfortable with it, and I find it easier to wield in close quarters.
 
#28 ·
That said, I wouldn't hesitate to use my AR for defensive purposes. My goto is my pistol, but only because I've handled it WAYYY more so I'm more comfortable with it, and I find it easier to wield in close quarters.
My dad told me a story he heard from a veteran of the Korean War that supports your logic. This man was an officer, and his position was being overrun by a human wave attack. He was inside a fortification when a Chinese soldier came down the stairs and into the doorway. The two saw each other, and the Chinaman went to raise his carbine, but it bumped on the door or door-frame, preventing him from getting a shot. The US officer was armed with a 1911 and managed to get shots off and survive the encounter. If the Chinese soldier had come in with a sidearm instead of a carbine, the story may have ended differently. I know it's just one incident, but a long gun in close quarters can be tricky.
 
#7 ·
I cannot eliminate a deadly threat against myself or my family fast enough - I will use the most effective tool at my disposal. Better tried by twelve than carried by six.
 
#8 ·
Massad Ayoob described in several magazines one case where a person used an SKS which was one of several issues that negatively affected the defender, but not the primary one. The prosecution considered the SKS an "assault weapon." We of course know it is not.

Personally, if it's what is close hand....use it. Plus, rifles and carbines offer better ballistics than pistols (or pistol-caliber carbines) and are easier to use than handguns. As such, there is a marked advantage to using your AR or AK than a handgun for HD.
 
#9 ·
Very good questions. For my part, I have never seen or heard of a case where a lawfully-possessed rifle or shotgun of any kind was lawfully used in self-defense and the jury ruled unfavorably because of the weapon. None of the law-folk (lawyers and police) that I speak to have heard of any such case, either.


-B
 
#16 ·
#12 ·
I have seen studies (caveat: on the Internet where anything can be faked) including photos which showed that a FMJ 5.56mm rifle bullet disintegrated when hitting a piece of drywall. The conclusion was that FMJ pistol bullets are a bigger over-penetration threat.

Google 5.56 + overpenetration to find 3000 hits.
 
#13 ·
Yes, the AR and over penetration issue is a common misconception. I'd be far more worried about 00 or a pistol round making it into a neighboring house.

I think as long as you use your "assault weapon" responsibly and professionally, you will be just fine. I'm sure the fact that you used it will come up but so would how you used it.
 
#14 ·
Self defense is exactly that. It shouldnt matter what you use to protect yourself or your family if you are in iminent danger or in fear of your life. I would use an M1 Abrams if it was at my disposal.






 
#15 ·
I'd like to see you put that in a SmartCarry :rofl:

Depending on the state and the laws within, I'd think using an AR or AK would be no big deal. And once it got out, I bet you have one of the safest houses on the block.

Again, as some have stated as long as the home defender isn't just shooting wildly and is using control, there shouldn't be much of an issue of over penetration.
 
#17 ·
I currently have an AK-47 for HD, but I only see a good use for it if our society unravels, sort of a Katrina or L.A . riot type scenerio. I want to get a shorten Shotgun like a Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 for purely HD. I also have my pistols as well.

I see no additional risk using an assault rifle as long as it won't go into your neighbors house.
 
#19 ·
I see no problem at all with it, personally I use 55gr. ballistic tip ammo or Hornady TAP rounds. If you have ever seen what these rounds do when they hit flesh of any kind, you will understand.

Trust me....
 
#21 ·
^ Sure, he finally walked...but only after an expensive court battle that took him years to pay off. Like the man said...if I'd have used a regular gun I would have gone home that same night. Hardly worth it IMO. I'd love to have an assault rifle for SHTF and just the plain joy of shooting one but I can't say I'd use one for self defense unless I had no other option. There's too many swine lawyers and Brady fools about that could very well try to ruin your life.
 
#26 ·
I have a Colt AR-15 Govt. Carbine which is part of my home defense armament as well as a Mossberg 590 military shotgun.

I use Hornady self defense ammo in the carbine and feel I should be able to defend it's use in court against an unscrupulous prosecutor if he chose to make an issue of the type of weapons I use.

As far as actual use in a home defense shooting, one of our forum members; Phaed, a U.S. Army Captain attending grad school used a folding stock AK-47 to shoot and kill an intruder in his home about a year and a half or so ago and wrote about it on this forum. He had absolutely no repercussions from law enforcement following the shooting. You may try a search to find the threads, or if one of the moderators can find it.

Bottom line is, of course... you may get some grief for using a so-called assault weapon in defense. If so, hopefully your attorney can shut that "red herring" down before it gets out of hand in court as it is, a red herring.

I am confident that between my knowledge and that of my attorney, we shouldn't have any problem defending my actions in court.

YMMV
 
#27 ·
Having a house with multiple layers of brick on the outside, from what I hear, is probably easily sufficient to stop a 5.56 round. So, I'd probably be fine.

I'd still rather not risk it though.

I don't think it would make a huge difference if you were using an AR15 vs a handgun. At least here, if the prosecutor decided to demonize the mere fact that someone has any gun at all is probably enough to scare a lot of people. :theyareontome:
 
#33 ·
Risk in using "assault weapons" for home defense?
Just like to point out the contradiction in terms. Anything used for self defense is not an "assault weapon". Who's definition, and who's weapons?
My question is essentially the thread title. Does anyone have any experience or anecdotal evidence to indicate that a homeowner would be at greater legal risk by planning in-home defense around an AR carbine, "assault shotgun," or other non-handgun optimized for fighting?

Assuming an otherwise "good shoot," is the defender more likely to have legal defense problems just because he used his carbine rather than his 1911?
Planning your home defense revolves around you....and your tool of choice. Most times we are talking a one man scenario, and whatever tools you have at your disposal are right for the cause. Everyone that takes up the cause should know their limitations as well as the limitations of the tool used. If you are worried about legal risks, then in reality, you're compromising your position. To me, compromise and assumption mean the same. Never assume anything or you'll make an ...out of . and ..
 
#34 ·
Lawyers can (and will) use buzzwords to whatever effect they can. Once you've decided to prepare yourself for defense with a firearm, I wouldn't worry too much about that.

On the penetration issue, I have done the demo several times in class, on DVDs and TV segments.... 5.56 does generally penetrate fewer drywall sections than typical modern pistol hollow points. TAP (or the civ equivalent) 5.56 or even standard 55gr HP is a "safer" round to be downrange from in a typical home than 9mm, .40 or .45 jacketed HPs. The heavier rounds maintain their forward momentum through the drywall much better, they also fragment less, which helps them stay heavier.

-RJP
 
#36 ·
As numerous posters have pointed out already, the risk of dangerous overpenetration is just as great or greater with many pistol calibers than it is with many 5.56/.223 loads.
 
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