The 9th Circuit has gone off it's rocker!

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-11-14 06:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:Manufacturing your own machinegun would be quite a bit of work (unless you can order all of the parts and simply assemble them, as suggested above). Is it really that important to anyone?

Indeed it is. This gets around all those pesky laws that totaly outlaw certain weapons.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-11-14 06:42pm

Shinova wrote:If you had a machine gun for home defense that'd be awesome. Imagine what some robber with a pistol would think when you come out with an AK47.

Hell, you could effectively defend your home with a pump-action shotgun that isn't even loaded. Just hearing the "cha-chuk!" sound while rummaging around in someone else's valuables is more than enough to make the thief reconsider his actions.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-14 07:00pm

Durandal wrote:
Shinova wrote:If you had a machine gun for home defense that'd be awesome. Imagine what some robber with a pistol would think when you come out with an AK47.
Hell, you could effectively defend your home with a pump-action shotgun that isn't even loaded. Just hearing the "cha-chuk!" sound while rummaging around in someone else's valuables is more than enough to make the thief reconsider his actions.

The problem, however, is when you get the stupid ones, not the smart ones. The ones that will try a Billy the Kid and shoot you first. It either ends with someone dying or a very compromising situation.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-11-14 08:30pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:The problem, however, is when you get the stupid ones, not the smart ones. The ones that will try a Billy the Kid and shoot you first. It either ends with someone dying or a very compromising situation.

The smart ones will usually perform some measure of reconnaissance on the target before burglarizing it. They'll find out when and for how long the house is empty and break in then. They'll also be sure to mark the locations of valuables that they spot to more quickly enter and exit the home and break in when no one is home. This is why it's always a good idea to shut your shades when you're leaving the house for extended periods of times. Competent thieves won't bother with your home unless they can enter it with relative certainty as to where your valuables are.

Also, the smart ones will generally stay away from a home where the owner has a gun for obvious reasons. Gun owners are generally more paranoid about their property and are less lax when it comes to securing it properly. Smart thieves don't even carry weapons. They're there to steal shit, not kill people, and if caught they don't need their robbery charges upgraded to armed robbery.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-11-14 09:14pm

Yeah, but you can't count on the thief being a professional instead of some crack head ripping you off for his fix. So it's best not to make clickety-clackety sounds with shotguns unless you've got a shell in there.

Frankly, even though I advocate using firearms for home defense, if you know you're not willing to really use them, you're better off without them around. Pointing an unloaded weapon at someone is a good way to have them draw a loaded one on you.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-11-15 04:12pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Shinova wrote:If you had a machine gun for home defense that'd be awesome. Imagine what some robber with a pistol would think when you come out with an AK47.
Hell, you could effectively defend your home with a pump-action shotgun that isn't even loaded. Just hearing the "cha-chuk!" sound while rummaging around in someone else's valuables is more than enough to make the thief reconsider his actions.
The problem, however, is when you get the stupid ones, not the smart ones. The ones that will try a Billy the Kid and shoot you first. It either ends with someone dying or a very compromising situation.

That's why you kill them before they're even aware of your presense.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-11-15 06:46pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Durandal wrote: Hell, you could effectively defend your home with a pump-action shotgun that isn't even loaded. Just hearing the "cha-chuk!" sound while rummaging around in someone else's valuables is more than enough to make the thief reconsider his actions.
The problem, however, is when you get the stupid ones, not the smart ones. The ones that will try a Billy the Kid and shoot you first. It either ends with someone dying or a very compromising situation.
That's why you kill them before they're even aware of your presense.

That doesn't really fit in with self-defense laws, Spankster. If you kill them before they show their weapon, you're going to have to eat them. Rules are rules.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-11-15 08:11pm

That doesn't really fit in with self-defense laws, Spankster.

Self defense and defense of home laws vary from state to state.

Generally speaking, in order to use deadly force to defend oneself outside of the home, the attacker must have both the means and ability to carry out a threat of serious bodily harm, injury, or death. In addition, some states have a 'duty to retreat' clause that basically means your back must be against the wall before you can resort to deadly force.

In other words, shooting the 8 year old who threatens you with a whiffle bat will get you into a world of hurt. Shooting the 17 year old who says that he's going to beat your brains out as he is advancing on you and has a Louisville Slugger in his hands meets the legal standard for self-defense in states that don't have a 'duty to retreat' in their self defense laws.

Inside your home, an entirely different standard applies in most states.
There's a discussion here on the home defense laws of both Colorado and Indiana.

In Colorado, it's open season on burglars and there is no bag limit.

Defense laws vary from state to state. Learn the laws of your own state.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-11-15 08:23pm

The thread I linked to in my last post also is a good illustration of the 'disparity of force' doctrine that allows armed self-defense against an unarmed attacker when the attacker is much more physically capable than the person he's attacking.

In this case, the age, size, and strength differences legally allowed that lady to use lethal force in the form of a handgun for self-defense against her unarmed attacker.

Now if it'd been me, I wouldn't have been justified in shooting him in self-defense as I'm a 36 year old male who while overweight, is fairly strong and in otherwise good physical condition.

Now if Jean-Claude Van Damme attacked me, my knowledge of his martial arts skills would justify the use of deadly force against him (not that I'd be able to draw my gun before he cripples me, though).

In any case, discretion is the better part of valor. I'm licensed to carry a gun, but I don't go looking for trouble and I avoid fights. I don't hang out in bars for the most part, and on the rare occasions that I do go out drinking I leave the gun at home. A license to carry a gun is not a license to kill.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-11-15 08:31pm

And somewhat back on topic, to build a STEN gun all you need is a length of steel tubing, a dremel, and a $40 surplus STEN parts set.

Cut out the holes (templates are available) in the tubing for the bolt and trigger group, assemble your parts in the tube, and you've got a STEN.

Full auto AK parts sets are available for less than $100. Get a partially finished AK reciever kit (it needs to be bent into shape, the holes drilled, and the bolt rails welded on), finish it, throw in your parts set.

The tools required to do this are no more advanced than those in a high school metalworking classroom.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-15 09:16pm

I'd rather wait and see if this is actually held up before I go and
make MGs

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-11-15 09:23pm

MKSheppard wrote:I'd rather wait and see if this is actually held up before I go and
make MGs

No kidding.
5-10 in the Federal Slam isn't the way I'd like to spend the next several years.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2003-11-16 12:50am

Durran Korr wrote:Always glad to see the broad power of the commerce clause scaled back a bit.

Agreed, The Federal Goverment has been abusing that clause for far too long.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-11-16 03:41am

In the state of Tennessee, if someone is in your home, then it is open season. If they are outside your home, then that is where you get into the gray area that they must present a serious threat to bodily harm. Like, legally, I couldn't shoot someone if I saw them walking across my yard after looting the shed behind my house. (but I could scare the living crap out of them by strategically placing rounds near their feet

) At least that's how I remember it, although I could be mistaken.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-16 03:50am

Glocksman wrote:
No kidding.
5-10 in the Federal Slam isn't the way I'd like to spend the next several years.

That's what your new machine gun is there to prevent.