Limits of weapons in self defence in America?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No we don’t.

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).

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.

I thought I’d remembered that they were using fully automatic pistols. As noted earlier, I was mistaken.

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.

“Automatic” is a typical shorthand of “semi-automatic.” True fully automatic pistols would be quite unusual in even a criminal context.

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.

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),