Legality in MD of using a suppressor for SD in the home

303_enfield · Sep 2, 2016

It just makes the "BANG" hearing safe (pew,pew,pew).

Devil Dog · Sep 3, 2016

While I am an attorney my practice is on the civil law side and not the criminal-law side, so this is not legal advice, just my personal view.

I agree with the others, there is no legal prohibition that I've ever come across regarding suppressors/silencers and home defense. Most likely there is an element of the story that had been left out. It is also possible that the cops were just plain wrong. No offense to our brothers in blue but not every cop is an expert on firearms law.

My only advice (again, this is more personal than legal) is to think about how things might look to a grand jury after an overly aggressive and perhaps anti-gun prosecutor is done portraying you as some kind of nut who was praying that some poor robber would try to steal your TV so you could illegally gun down this mere property-crime perp with your assassin's gun with its evil silencer. You just might get an indictment come your way in what was in fact a case of self defense.

Just something to think about.

Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

swinokur · Sep 3, 2016

If the NFA item is not under the direct control of the legal owner, like the person leaving the NFA item unlocked, there is a case for a charge of constructive possession.

But IANAL

Sticky · Sep 3, 2016

swinokur said:
If the NFA item is not under the direct control of the legal owner, like the person leaving the NFA item unlocked, there is a case for a charge of constructive possession.

But IANAL

My hunch is this may be the case, it was not properly secured from a potential 'prohibited person' or just plain not properly secured and others in the house were not trustees of the trust (if there was one).

GeorgeSSR · Sep 3, 2016

Biggfoot44 said:
But in Md's Machine Gun statute firing anywhere except shoot range is "being kept for Offensive Purpose" . Don't start about the meaning of offensive vs defemsive. Offensive Purpose is assumed for possesing loaded machine gun' except for specific exemption of shooting range.

I would have thought the below definition of offensive or aggressive would preclude the application of that definition towards keeping it in one's home (similar to how paying a lane rental satisfies rental for business occupancy?).

§ 4-405. Use of machine gun for aggressive purpose said:
(a) Presumption of offensive or aggressive purpose. -- Possession or use of a machine gun is presumed to be for an offensive or aggressive purpose when:
(1) the machine gun:
(i) is on premises not owned or rented for bona fide permanent residence or business occupancy by the person in whose possession the machine gun is found;

ericoak · Sep 3, 2016

Someone point to one case in the history of NFA where someone was prosecuted for their wife or kids having access to NFA item. Never happened as far as I'm aware.

GunnerGunz · Sep 3, 2016

Devil Dog said:
While I am an attorney my practice is on the civil law side and not the criminal-law side, so this is not legal advice, just my personal view.

I agree with the others, there is no legal prohibition that I've ever come across regarding suppressors/silencers and home defense. Most likely there is an element of the story that had been left out. It is also possible that the cops were just plain wrong. No offense to our brothers in blue but not every cop is an expert on firearms law.

My only advice (again, this is more personal than legal) is to think about how things might look to a grand jury after an overly aggressive and perhaps anti-gun prosecutor is done portraying you as some kind of nut who was praying that some poor robber would try to steal your TV so you could illegally gun down this mere property-crime perp with your assassin's gun with its evil silencer. You just might get an indictment come your way in what was in fact a case of self defense.

Just something to think about.

Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

Oh you mean Mosby the Hun (distant cousin of Atilla)

Kingjamez · Sep 3, 2016

ericoak said:
Someone point to one case in the history of NFA where someone was prosecuted for their wife or kids having access to NFA item. Never happened as far as I'm aware.

+10. Internet law discussions and advice is fraught with boggy men arguments like you point out.

The OP has been answered: No. 4th hand stories of legal action are always / always missing details.

-Jim

ironpony · Sep 4, 2016

I believe some have even named their trust "All Legal Purposes".

outrider58 · Sep 4, 2016

Hell, you can legally hunt with suppressed firearms in Md. There's got to be more to that story.

nmyers · Sep 4, 2016

I think that, aside from the word "arrested", everything else you were told was based on "mis-remembering" a 2014 incident in Seattle:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...n-crime-in-federal-heroin-case-032140462.html

"Believe nothing that you hear, & only half of what you see." ---- unknown

Pinecone · Sep 4, 2016

swinokur said:
If the NFA item is not under the direct control of the legal owner, like the person leaving the NFA item unlocked, there is a case for a charge of constructive possession.

But IANAL

This is what I was thinking. Individual ownership, but not in safe, so accessible to all people in the house.

Also, MD says SBRs are handguns (except when they are rifles), so with under 16 year old kids, there is that access also.

outrider58 · Sep 4, 2016

Pinecone said:
This is what I was thinking. Individual ownership, but not in safe, so accessible to all people in the house.

Also, MD says SBRs are handguns (except when they are rifles), so with under 16 year old kids, there is that access also.

But if he was there at the time of the finding, access by others is legal as long as they aren't prohibited.

swinokur · Sep 4, 2016

It wouldn't be hard to prove based on facts, that others may have had access when he wasn't there either.

very slippery slope iMO.

outrider58 · Sep 4, 2016

swinokur said:
It wouldn't be hard to prove based on facts, that others may have had access when he wasn't there either.

very slippery slope iMO.

Absolutely, as in, if he had no lockable storage on the premises. :thumbsup:

sgt23preston · Sep 4, 2016

Legal or not, IF you shoot someone you will be tried in the PRESS...

This is how the article might read...

"Heavily armed man killed someone in his home"...

The gun had been modified by adding a silencer...

The ammo used was home made with lethal bullet tips...

The shooter is known to hang out on Maryland Gun Blogs & has ties to Right Wing Politics"...

Use A 45acp...

Clutch · Sep 4, 2016

Not everyone in the home is necessarily allowed to have access to NFA items. So, perhaps it could be a failure to secure said NFA item from general (uncontrolled) access/use.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

ericoak · Sep 4, 2016

Clutch said:
Not everyone in the home is necessarily allowed to have access to NFA items. So, perhaps it could be a failure to secure said NFA item from general (uncontrolled) access/use.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

Can you name one example where someone was charged for their close family member having access?

Clutch · Sep 4, 2016

Nope

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

ericoak · Sep 4, 2016

People I talked to who have been in the NFA game since the 70s said family member access was never considered a concern until lawyers selling gun trusts started touting it as an advantage to their trusts.

Actually taking NFA items out of the house and using them, totally different.

Legality in MD of using a suppressor for SD in the home

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

In a State of Bliss

Beware of Dog

Active Member

don't drop Aboma on me

Sunken Treasure

Gun Builder

Member

Eats Bacon Raw

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Eats Bacon Raw

In a State of Bliss

Eats Bacon Raw

USMC LLA. NRA Life Member

Member

don't drop Aboma on me

Member

don't drop Aboma on me

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics