PDA

View Full Version : "LE/Govt Use Only" for self-defense?


esskay
04-07-2009, 9:51 AM
Picked up a Ruger Mini-14 that was a contract overrun for one of Ruger's LE contracts. Nothing "evil" about the rifle, completely CA-compliant, it just happened to be factory configured with a short LOP stock and a 16+" barrel (with no muzzle device).

For those in particularly unfriendly counties, one of the rationale for using such a rifle for self-defense would be that it doesn't look as evil as an AR with a U15 or MMG and doesn't require pulling out a flow chart to justify its legality. With a shortened stock and 16" barrel it is still quite handy indoors. Also cheaper!

But noticed Ruger stamped the receiver with "Restricted Law Enforcement/Govt Use Only"

Would anyone have worries or concerns about using this rifle for self-defense? e.g. while completely legal could it give an overzealous DA an edge? (more so say than using a legally configured featureless AR?) etc

Appreciate thoughts/input.

ETA: Thanks for the feedback everyone!

grywlfbg
04-07-2009, 9:54 AM
If it's legal regarding features and length (barrel and OAL) it doesn't matter what's stamped on the side.

My EOTech optic says, "For law enforcement/military use". Does that mean I can't have it? No, it's just a ploy to charge higher prices :)

DDT
04-07-2009, 9:57 AM
heck, you could argue that since it is acceptable for LEO it must be an acceptable self defense weapon. Isn't that the same thing people recommend when buying SD ammo?

CHS
04-07-2009, 10:04 AM
Would anyone have worries or concerns about using this rifle for self-defense?

None whatsoever.

sierra2kilo
04-07-2009, 10:13 AM
I'd find something else. It's probably wiser to think about what an overambitious prosecutor is going to be able to scare a jury into feeling.

kermit315
04-07-2009, 10:16 AM
you are fine with that rifle. If you ever use it in a shooting, you can count on it being taken as evidence anyway. If they ever tried to charge you for something related to the stamping on it, I would love to see the charge.

megavolt121
04-07-2009, 10:19 AM
The markings on the side shouldn't concern you at all if the gun is legally configured.

However, using a Mini-14 for HD should concern you...

CHS
04-07-2009, 10:26 AM
I'd find something else. It's probably wiser to think about what an overambitious prosecutor is going to be able to scare a jury into feeling.

What do you base that on?

No one, EVER, has been prosecuted based on the type of LEGAL firearm or ammunition or alterations to a gun that they have used in lawful self defense.

Everyone talks about a DA making a case against you for lightening up your trigger, using hollowpoints, using reloads, using high-cap mags, etc, etc, etc. No one has *EVER* been able to cite a case where this has actually happened.

So again, I ask, what do you base this scare on?

DDT
04-07-2009, 10:29 AM
Everyone talks about a DA making a case against you for lightening up your trigger, using hollowpoints, using reloads, using high-cap mags, etc, etc, etc. No one has *EVER* been able to cite a case where this has actually happened.

I think MOST of the arguments along this line are more about potential civil actions. Slimy PI attorney accuses righteous shooter of injuring scumbag client more than necessary by using "Hot Loads" or "cop killer" bullets.

SuperSet
04-07-2009, 10:56 AM
Brutha, you're asking a hypothetical and that's hard to address with any measure of certainty. I have yet to see anyone here document a case where any of M191145's factors are raised in court.
Scott Reitz talks about this quite a bit in his class since he makes his living training lawyers as a lethal force expert. The cliff notes are:
1. Exhaust all possibilities before using lethal force. It should not be your first option.
2. Once lethal force is authorized, the method is unimportant. As verbatim, "I can run them over with my Hummer if I wanted".

bwiese
04-07-2009, 11:22 AM
The only question that'll be looked at in a SD sceario is, "Was the shoot legit?"

If the shoot is legit, there will be no concerns about an otherwise-legal gun.

If the shoot is bad, nobody cares about the gun either and you'll have far far bigger problems.

Go back to sleep and stop worrying.

ke6guj
04-07-2009, 11:49 AM
What do you base that on?

No one, EVER, has been prosecuted based on the type of LEGAL firearm or ammunition or alterations to a gun that they have used in lawful self defense.

Everyone talks about a DA making a case against you for lightening up your trigger, using hollowpoints, using reloads, using high-cap mags, etc, etc, etc. No one has *EVER* been able to cite a case where this has actually happened.

So again, I ask, what do you base this scare on?

EVER is a strong word. Would this incident count, http://www.davehayes.org/2006/02/10/the-gary-fadden-incident

Untamed1972
04-07-2009, 11:54 AM
I would think if it REALLY was an issue that a pvt. citizen should not have it then it shouldn't have been sold to you in the first place.

Isn't there a minimum overall length requirement including stock...Like 35" or something like that?

ke6guj
04-07-2009, 12:23 PM
Isn't there a minimum overall length requirement including stock...Like 35" or something like that?26" is the minimum length a rifle/shotgun can be without triggering Short-barrel rifle/shotgun status.

30" is the minimum for a semi-automatic centerfire rifle that is not a registered Assault Weapon.

Untamed1972
04-07-2009, 12:24 PM
26" is the minimum length a rifle/shotgun can be without triggering Short-barrel rifle/shotgun status.

30" is the minimum for a semi-automatic centerfire rifle that is not a registered Assault Weapon.

Yeah.....that's what I was thinking! :thumbsup:

I deal with numbers all day and so they all start to run together after awhile.

CHS
04-07-2009, 2:35 PM
EVER is a strong word. Would this incident count, http://www.davehayes.org/2006/02/10/the-gary-fadden-incident

I'd say it's the closest citation so far that i've seen, but:

"the judge made a point of instructing the jury that the death weapon had nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the shooting was self-defense. The jury learned that Gary purchased the AC-556 personally and that it was perfectly legal to possess the weapon."

It sounds like it was tried, but nipped in the butt real quickly.

CHS
04-07-2009, 2:36 PM
30" is the minimum for a semi-automatic centerfire rifle that is not a registered Assault Weapon.

Only in California :)

DDT
04-07-2009, 2:56 PM
I'd say it's the closest citation so far that i've seen, but:


It sounds like it was tried, but nipped in the butt real quickly.

It seems you've moved the goal posts. This man clearly was PROSECUTED because of the weapon he chose to use. He was not CONVICTED because of the weapon he chose to use. Do you think the same outcome is likely in front of a California jury?

CHS
04-07-2009, 3:24 PM
It seems you've moved the goal posts. This man clearly was PROSECUTED because of the weapon he chose to use. He was not CONVICTED because of the weapon he chose to use. Do you think the same outcome is likely in front of a California jury?

I haven't moved the goal posts at all.

He was prosecuted because he killed a man in self defense. That's pretty much SOP any time you end up killing someone, lawful or not.

You're going to lose your gun during the trial. And you're going to be arrested. The question was does the type of gun have any bearing on the trial? And the resounding answer is NO.

ke6guj
04-07-2009, 3:41 PM
I would agree that you moved the goal posts. According to Gary Fadden, he was prosecuted for murder because he used the AC556. Had he used a less-evil firearm, it would have likely been considered self-defense and not prosecuted.