More than I thought, but then you’re counting the ones where its technically legal but de facto illegal for ordinary people.
There is a way around that.
It’s true that you, private citizen PatriotGrrl, require a sign-off on a Form 4 from a Chief Law Enforcement Officer to obtain a legally transferable automatic weapon. It’s also true that in some locales the CLEO will refuse to sign off on the Form 4. However, there exists something called an NFA Trust. What that entails is the creation of a trust which can then purchase the weapon for the trust. This does not require the CLEO to sign off on the Form 4. So, by creating the trust and making yourself the sole member of it you can get anything you want so long as it is legal within the state you reside in.
There are complications, of course. You technically do not own the weapons, the trust does, with all the legal complications that may come with that. But the bottom line is this: where automatic weapons are legal you can obtain one provided it is a legally registered weapon and you are legally qualified to own one.
Sorry for the hijack.
According to the dialog on the 911 tape, the burglars came on Horn’s property:
This was confirmed by a police detective who watched the entire scene.
So why did you say that they were robbing the neighbor and not threatening him?
One advantage of a trust is that other trust members can be allowed to use the items owned by the trust. Individually owned items may not be possessed by other than the registered owner. An LLC would confer the same benefits.
The above also applies to any other National Fire Arms (NFA) weapon including suppressors (silencers), short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns.
Your state may disallow some of these under state law or impose additional restrictions. In my state you need to have a Federal Firearms License, but a Curio & Relics collectors license meets the letter of the law and only costs $10 for three years. It also provides additional benefits.
Thanks.
That’s actually good news.
Looters are cowardly, for good reason.
Nice selective quoting.
The picture changes dramatically when you read the full transcript. Mr. Horn was specifically asked by the 911 operator, repeatedly, to not go out there because police were on the way. Horn asserts that he will not let these guys get away with this. Horn put himself in the front yard when he would have been far safer remaining inside with his gun pointed at the door.
In short Horn placed himself in that situation. As good an example of vigilante justice as I have ever seen. Mr. Horn made himself judge, jury and executioner when he was entirely able to remain out of the situation.
You being an attorney I would be surprised if you were ok with vigilante justice.
Dispatcher: "I want you to listen to me carefully, OK?" Horn: "Yes?" Dispatcher: "I got ultras coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers are poking around out there." Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it." Dispatcher: "I understand." Horn: "I have a right to protect myself ..." Dispatcher: "I'm ..." Horn: "And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon." Dispatcher: "No, it's not, I'm not saying that, I'm just not wanting you to ..." Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window. " Dispatcher: "No, don't, don't go out the door, Mister Horn. Mister Horn..." Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!" Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house." Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy." Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think." Horn: "You wanna make a bet?" Dispatcher: "Stay in the house." Horn: "There, one of them's getting away! Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it." Horn: "They got a bag of loot." Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information. Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?" Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out." Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..." Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going." Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."
On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.
“Boom! You’re dead!” he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.
Then Horn is back on the phone:
"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."
SOURCE: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story
I fail to see what you are getting at Whack-a-Mole. The dispatcher was wrong. Horn is allowed to use lethal force to protect property and to prevent theft at night; at least in Texas.
Was it the most prudent course of action? Maybe not. But it certainly wasn’t criminal.
I fail to see what you are getting at Whack-a-Mole. The dispatcher was wrong. Horn is allowed to use lethal force to protect property and to prevent theft at night; at least in Texas.
Was it the most prudent course of action? Maybe not. But it certainly wasn’t criminal.
Did the dispatcher say any of this was illegal or merely counsel Horn to not go after these guys?
Anyway, I noted that what Horn did was legal upthread.
The OP is asking about limits of self defense. I noted that in some states you have a duty to retreat if you can do so safely and in others you are allowed to hunt people down who are not even threatening you (or any person…property is sufficient).
Broad differences.

The answer is that most of them permit the ownership of automatic weapons, specifically:
<snip>
Minnesota
<snip>39 of the 50 states permit ownership and possession of automatic weapons provided they were initially registered in accordance with the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. No post-May 1986 automatic weapons are allowed to be transferred to civilians in any state although the police and other law enforcement or protection agencies and specially licensed dealers may possess post-ban weapons.
Hell of a lot more than you thought, wasn’t it?
In Minnesota, it’s a case of “effectively banned in everything but name”. Federallly licensed firearms dealers can acquire automatic weapons, but only for the purpose of reselling them to law enforcement and other authorized government types. Here is the most recent statute I could find. My local gun dealer/range allows people to rent automatic firearms to shoot on premises, but IIRC the range can only have two of any particular model. By my reading of the statute, workarounds like creating a LLC or trust aren’t going to work in Minnesota.

In some cases you have a duty to retreat if you can do so safely and only use reasonable force if you must defend yourself. As noted this is determined in hindsight.
In other states, notably Texas, they have the Castle Doctrine which means if someone is robbing your neighbor (not threatening you) you can chase them down and shoot them in the back legally.
That is not the castle doctrine.
The castle doctrine, or castle law, is that “your home is your castle,” and there is no “duty to retreat” from any confrontation with an intruder in your own home.
States with a “strong” castle doctrine specifically allow the use of lethal force against intruders in the home even if there is no “immediate lethal threat” from the intruder; i.e., you can shoot the man dead the moment he enters your house–or any time you find him there–the intrusion alone being all the justification you need. The intruder need not be armed.
Texas, by contrast, is a “stand your ground” state, meaning that there is not necessarily a “duty to retreat” from any confrontation by anyone “who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used…”
The Horn case is open to some interpretation, but he didn’t “chase them down,” he chose to confront them on his property. They might not have been shot in the back. One of them ran toward him before being shot, and Horn said he felt threatened. (cite) By a generous reading, at least, Horn was acting within Texas law.
Horn is allowed to use lethal force to protect property and to prevent theft at night; at least in Texas.
Well, it wasn’t night, it was broad daylight, 2:00 in the afternoon. Although I don’t see that the time of day should make any difference.
But no, lethal force only in defense of property is not legal in any state that I’m aware of. Both Horn and the police have noted the threat he claims to have perceived to himself. That’s why the detail of how close they were to him, and whether they approached him instead of running straight away, is seen as significant.

None of them owned machine guns, and nobody had napalm. Both are rather strictly controlled, no matter what Hollywood tells you.
I knew this would be misunderstood as soon as I read the OP.
Quartz is in the UK and they refer to semi-automatic pistols as machine pistols. Handguns are simply revolvers.
The napalm he refered to is a hypothetical home-made gel-gas. Anyone with a bucket and a couple of easily obtainable compounds can mix up a batch in 15 minutes. The deliver system would be impractible, but the volatile component wouldn’t be a problem.

If you mean that audible alarms don’t necessarily scare off intruders, I agree. However, don’t alarms that give you at least some notice that someone’s breaking in gain you valuable seconds?
True. An alarm would, at the least, provide some warning. My point, albeit somewhat unclear, is that you need to be prepared to take care of yourself. In my case, the police arrived 11 minutes from the time my wife called 911. I’d say that was pretty quick. However the incident was all over in 4.

Quartz is in the UK and they refer to semi-automatic pistols as machine pistols. Handguns are simply revolvers.
No we don’t.
But no, lethal force only in defense of property is not legal in any state that I’m aware of.
Well, the Castle Doctrine would at best seem to be a fudge on that. As noted above it means if someone breaks into your house you can shoot them. I suppose the presumption is since they broke in it is automatically self defense on your part since they are clearly up to no good but that is a bit of a reach to suppose they are there to hurt you. More likely they want your stuff.
IIRC if the guy is climbing out of your window with your TV in hand you can legally shoot him (in some states anyway).

No we don’t.
Maybe I was overly broad then. I have talked to UK citizens that did and was under the impression that it was the common nomenclature.
Apologies. Ignorance fought and all that.
Quartz will have to clarify for himself whether he mean semi or fully automatic weapons in this case.

Quartz will have to clarify for himself whether he mean semi or fully automatic weapons in this case.
I thought I’d remembered that they were using fully automatic pistols. As noted earlier, I was mistaken.
But no, lethal force only in defense of property is not legal in any state that I’m aware of. Both Horn and the police have noted the threat he claims to have perceived to himself. That’s why the detail of how close they were to him, and whether they approached him instead of running straight away, is seen as significant.
Actually, thinking on it more, look at the 911 transcript above. Horn is not in immediate danger. He is talking to the 911 operator and stating his intention to not let those guys get away with this and notes the law changed and he can do that. The 911 operator does not disagree.
So, Horn was apparently legally able to go after people robbing someone else’s house. Having the guys “come after him” probably helped clear him but it does not look strictly necessary to his defense.

I thought I’d remembered that they were using fully automatic pistols. As noted earlier, I was mistaken.
“Automatic” is a typical shorthand of “semi-automatic.” True fully automatic pistols would be quite unusual in even a criminal context.

Well, the Castle Doctrine would at best seem to be a fudge on that. As noted above it means if someone breaks into your house you can shoot them.
Yes, my understanding has always been that these laws presume that being faced with an intruder in the house is a threat. He may not have a weapon, but you’re justified in feeling threatened and defending yourself.

Actually, thinking on it more, look at the 911 transcript above. Horn is not in immediate danger. He is talking to the 911 operator and stating his intention to not let those guys get away with this and notes the law changed and he can do that. The 911 operator does not disagree.
So, Horn was apparently legally able to go after people robbing someone else’s house. Having the guys “come after him” probably helped clear him but it does not look strictly necessary to his defense.
Well, let’s be clear. He didn’t just open the door or window and start blasting. He left the house, but remained on his own property, and told them to stop. At least one of them, apparently, made a move that could be interpreted as a threatening move toward Horn. At that point, under Texas law as I understood it, he is justified in “defending himself.”
However, I’ve now realized that I was mistaken. Texas law does allow force solely in defense of property (and to end trespass), including a third person’s property. The only catch is that (in addition to meeting the requirements for defense of one’s own property),
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person’s land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor’s spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor’s care.