They coming from all angles!
-
Hey Guest, it looks like you haven't made your first post yet. Until you make an introduction thread, the rest of the site is locked to posting. Why not take a few minutes to say hi!
Federal law adds 10years to prison time if convicted of using NFA item or AR15 including self defense.
If something goes wrong in what should be considered self defense and the home owner is convicted and they used a SBR, SBS, braced pistol, full auto or suppressor during the altercation the feds can add 10-30years to the sentence.
Law 18 USC 924
Law 18 USC 924
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
"Crime of violence" are the key words-
(A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—
(i)
be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;
(ii)
if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and
(iii)
if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.
(B) If the firearmpossessed by a person convicted of a violation of this subsection—
(i)
is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or
(ii)
is a machinegun or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 30 years.
(A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—
(i)
be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;
(ii)
if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and
(iii)
if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.
(B) If the firearmpossessed by a person convicted of a violation of this subsection—
(i)
is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or
(ii)
is a machinegun or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 30 years.
I saw this online today, an attorney trying to explain some of the new laws.
Self defense may not be self defense if the guy is running away and shot in the back or the home owner chases the guy 2 houses down so some self defense trials could end up going the wrong way. If the home owner or original victim of a robbery uses a NFA item or a semi automatic assault rifle the feds can add 10-30 years to the sentence.
Self defense may not be self defense if the guy is running away and shot in the back or the home owner chases the guy 2 houses down so some self defense trials could end up going the wrong way. If the home owner or original victim of a robbery uses a NFA item or a semi automatic assault rifle the feds can add 10-30 years to the sentence.
I read in the news over the weekend of a local drug dealer (with felony priors) sold drugs to an undercover Seattle Police Officer. They executed a warrant with the SWAT team and recovered (at the guy's home) about $55K in cash/drugs and he was carrying a handgun. In a second bedroom, they found another couple dozen firearms, (many stolen) as well as stolen power tools. Apparently he was fencing stolen property and paying the thieves in drugs. He was sentenced to 11 years.
It would appear the law abiding citizen who's protecting his castle from these drug addict burglars is the bigger threat to society, not the actual criminals engaging in felonious behavior on a daily basis.
It would appear the law abiding citizen who's protecting his castle from these drug addict burglars is the bigger threat to society, not the actual criminals engaging in felonious behavior on a daily basis.
When they are running away, seems to me they are no longer a threat to your person or property. That moves the pointer from self defense to execution.I saw this online today, an attorney trying to explain some of the new laws.
Self defense may not be self defense if the guy is running away and shot in the back or the home owner chases the guy 2 houses down so some self defense trials could end up going the wrong way. If the home owner or original victim of a robbery uses a NFA item or a semi automatic assault rifle the feds can add 10-30 years to the sentence.
Somebody's gotta do it, the legal system sure isn't. LOLWhen they are running away, seems to me they are no longer a threat to your person or property. That moves the pointer from self defense to execution.
These only kick in (Section 924(c))
Possession in Furtherance
Section 924(c) has two alternative firearm-nexus elements: (a) possession in furtherance and (b) carrying or use.127 The possession-in-furtherance version of the offense requires that the defendant "(1) committed a drug trafficking crime; (2) knowingly possessed a firearm; and (3) possessed the firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking crime [or other predicate offense]."128 The "possession" component may take the form of either actual or constructive possession. "Constructive possession exists when a person does not have possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others."129
The "in furtherance" component compels the government to show some nexus between possession of a firearm and a predicate offense – that is, to show that the firearm furthered, advanced, moved forward, promoted, or in some way facilitated the predicate offense.130 This requires more than proof of the presence of a firearm in the same location as the predicate offense.131 Most circuits have identified specific factors that commonly allow a court to distinguish guilty possession from innocent "possession at the scene," particularly in a drug case, they include "(1) type of criminal activity that is being conducted; (2) accessibility of the firearm; (3) the type of firearm; (4) whether the firearm is stolen; (5) the status of the possession (legitimate or illegal); (6) whether the firearm is loaded; (7) the time and circumstances under which the firearm is found; and (8) the proximity to the drugs or drug profits."132
Although the Supreme Court has determined that acquiring a firearm in an illegal drug transaction does not constitute "use" in violation of Section 924(c),133 several of the circuits have found that such acquisition may constitute "possession in furtherance."134
Possession in Furtherance
Section 924(c) has two alternative firearm-nexus elements: (a) possession in furtherance and (b) carrying or use.127 The possession-in-furtherance version of the offense requires that the defendant "(1) committed a drug trafficking crime; (2) knowingly possessed a firearm; and (3) possessed the firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking crime [or other predicate offense]."128 The "possession" component may take the form of either actual or constructive possession. "Constructive possession exists when a person does not have possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others."129
The "in furtherance" component compels the government to show some nexus between possession of a firearm and a predicate offense – that is, to show that the firearm furthered, advanced, moved forward, promoted, or in some way facilitated the predicate offense.130 This requires more than proof of the presence of a firearm in the same location as the predicate offense.131 Most circuits have identified specific factors that commonly allow a court to distinguish guilty possession from innocent "possession at the scene," particularly in a drug case, they include "(1) type of criminal activity that is being conducted; (2) accessibility of the firearm; (3) the type of firearm; (4) whether the firearm is stolen; (5) the status of the possession (legitimate or illegal); (6) whether the firearm is loaded; (7) the time and circumstances under which the firearm is found; and (8) the proximity to the drugs or drug profits."132
Although the Supreme Court has determined that acquiring a firearm in an illegal drug transaction does not constitute "use" in violation of Section 924(c),133 several of the circuits have found that such acquisition may constitute "possession in furtherance."134
Just don't be a criminal doing criminal activity. In my red state I doubt it would even matter what I used for home and self defense. On a further note, crimes of property theft and break-ins will be on the rise since the border has been trashed.
So this law gives an overweight advantage to the criminal? And put an undue burden up a legal gun owner. How does one stand your ground?
So this law gives an overweight advantage to the criminal? And put an undue burden up a legal gun owner. How does one stand your ground?
I'd suggest concealed carry insurance, it's worth it. Even if you live in a freedom loving Red state, the legal issues and fees can be astronomical if you get some delusional prosecutor who hates freedom loving people and thinks he can win the case to throw you in prison or if you get sued by the assailants family member to turns a blind eye to all the destruction and death their "love one" deals out to others. There are twisted people who will defend their family member no matter how evil their acts are, in their eyes, them always in the right no matter how wrong they are.
Concealed carry insurance isn't just for concealed carry; it is for all self-defense related occurrences regardless of the means by which you defended yourself (could be just your elbows and knees that seriously injured them in hand-to-hand self-defense scuffle and now they or a prosecutor is coming after you even though you were just defending yourself). And yes, to assault / eliminate an assailant while he / she is retreating makes YOU the bad guy, DON'T DO IT. That is MURDER, period.
Will they answer for it in time? Absolutely they will stand before God, PERIOD. They know what they are doing is wrong, but don't give them any legal quarter!
1. There is NO justificaiton to use deadly force if the assailant is fleeing, they are no longer an immediate threat, so what purpose would that serve except to take life / cause injury when it's not necessary? That clearly makes you the bad guy as mentioned above by BugOnPoint and I personally don't disagree with this. I wouldn't even joke about it because social media "one liners' have actually been used in the past to prosecute innocent people even though they were the victim. Legal issues aren't some joke, these jackals will use ANYTHING to smear you, make you look bad just to get a conviction.
2. Unless they are stealing something your life immediately depends on, material things can be replaced. It's not justifiable to take a life to protect material possessions. The only exception I would argue would be in a SHTF situation, the possessions you actually care about are things you depend upon to live very literally, in that case theft of those life sustaining possessions (food, water, medical supplies, shelter, clothing) justifies the use of lethal force if necessary as it preserves your life and those under your care, such theft will cause your death, thus there is justifiable reason to use force to protect life sustaining supplies you and your loved ones depend upon.
Concealed carry insurance isn't just for concealed carry; it is for all self-defense related occurrences regardless of the means by which you defended yourself (could be just your elbows and knees that seriously injured them in hand-to-hand self-defense scuffle and now they or a prosecutor is coming after you even though you were just defending yourself). And yes, to assault / eliminate an assailant while he / she is retreating makes YOU the bad guy, DON'T DO IT. That is MURDER, period.
Will they answer for it in time? Absolutely they will stand before God, PERIOD. They know what they are doing is wrong, but don't give them any legal quarter!
1. There is NO justificaiton to use deadly force if the assailant is fleeing, they are no longer an immediate threat, so what purpose would that serve except to take life / cause injury when it's not necessary? That clearly makes you the bad guy as mentioned above by BugOnPoint and I personally don't disagree with this. I wouldn't even joke about it because social media "one liners' have actually been used in the past to prosecute innocent people even though they were the victim. Legal issues aren't some joke, these jackals will use ANYTHING to smear you, make you look bad just to get a conviction.
2. Unless they are stealing something your life immediately depends on, material things can be replaced. It's not justifiable to take a life to protect material possessions. The only exception I would argue would be in a SHTF situation, the possessions you actually care about are things you depend upon to live very literally, in that case theft of those life sustaining possessions (food, water, medical supplies, shelter, clothing) justifies the use of lethal force if necessary as it preserves your life and those under your care, such theft will cause your death, thus there is justifiable reason to use force to protect life sustaining supplies you and your loved ones depend upon.
I think the point the attorney was trying to make is, if a person/criminal of one of those protected groups of people break into your home or try to rob you and you return fire with a NFA weapon or even a AR15 as he/they are leaving and the DA decides to charge you with a crime and they succeed in proving it was not self defense they can give you an extra 10-30 years especially if a 3 letter non profit is pressuring the DA to charge it as a hate crime even though the protected persons initiated the crime. Say if Kyle Rittenhouse had been convicted.Just don't be a criminal doing criminal activity. In my red state I doubt it would even matter what I used for home and self defense. On a further note, crimes of property theft and break-ins will be on the rise since the border has been trashed.
So this law gives an overweight advantage to the criminal? And put an undue burden up a legal gun owner. How does one stand your ground?
The DAs are scared because now if they prosecute they know it will lead to rioting, looting and burning.Somebody's gotta do it, the legal system sure isn't. LOL
An instructor once said "use the best, biggest, baddest weapon you have because you may not get a second chance"
I'm going to use what I believe is the best tool for the job, period. We all have to make sure any shooting is justified.
I'm going to use what I believe is the best tool for the job, period. We all have to make sure any shooting is justified.
That is why I included it in the part of why/how a home owner may be charged and convicted.When they are running away, seems to me they are no longer a threat to your person or property. That moves the pointer from self defense to execution.
I think the point the attorney was trying to make is, if a person/criminal of one of those protected groups of people break into your home or try to rob you and you return fire with a NFA weapon or even a AR15 as he/they are leaving and the DA decides to charge you with a crime and they succeed in proving it was not self defense they can give you an extra 10-30 years especially if a 3 letter non profit is pressuring the DA to charge it as a hate crime even though the protected persons initiated the crime. Say if Kyle Rittenhouse had been convicted.
As I read it I don't think this is the case unless you are the one also committing a drug trafficking crime....
"Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device)"
I don't claim to be an expert on anything or for people to agree on anything. A pro 2a attorney posted the video detailing the law.
Sure for it to happen, things went wrong but like the guys(father &son) that stopped what they thought was a construction thief and they knew they were doing the right thing, both were convicted and went to prison. Since they shot the suspected thief(later determined there was no proof) it was a crime of violence. They were white he was black. If they had used an AR15 and the DA/state decided to prosecute it as a hate crime they could have received an addition 10 years, not that it matters on top of a life sentence.
With that, If you want to shoot someone robbing you with a full auto, SBR that has a can on it, go ahead, it won't be me.
I don't claim to be an expert on anything or for people to agree on anything. A pro 2a attorney posted the video detailing the law.
Sure for it to happen, things went wrong but like the guys(father &son) that stopped what they thought was a construction thief and they knew they were doing the right thing, both were convicted and went to prison. Since they shot the suspected thief(later determined there was no proof) it was a crime of violence. They were white he was black. If they had used an AR15 and the DA/state decided to prosecute it as a hate crime they could have received an addition 10 years, not that it matters on top of a life sentence.
With that, If you want to shoot someone robbing you with a full auto, SBR that has a can on it, go ahead, it won't be me.
If you wear a dress during the shooting you are ok. You can get away with anything.
hmmm, no body = no crime
just sayin
just sayin
What Larry is saying. Back in northern Cali if you had a problem with a large cat and you dispatched it out of sight and mind of the warden. There is no season on the large cats. SSS, shoot, shovel and shut up.
The bigger threat to society is obviously the criminnal. The bigger threat to the governemnt... Well that's us. They know what they're doing.I read in the news over the weekend of a local drug dealer (with felony priors) sold drugs to an undercover Seattle Police Officer. They executed a warrant with the SWAT team and recovered (at the guy's home) about $55K in cash/drugs and he was carrying a handgun. In a second bedroom, they found another couple dozen firearms, (many stolen) as well as stolen power tools. Apparently he was fencing stolen property and paying the thieves in drugs. He was sentenced to 11 years.
It would appear the law abiding citizen who's protecting his castle from these drug addict burglars is the bigger threat to society, not the actual criminals engaging in felonious behavior on a daily basis.
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
6.8 SPC Forums
A forum community dedicated to 6.8 SPC firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
