bigtim6656

OK a few years ago when i bought my first AR two weeks after buying it i went to Florida

i was living with my brother sister and her boyfriend and since there were people i did not know well some of who were not the best of people to have in ones home i wonted to take my AR with me so i know it was safe and not going to end up in the hands of a criminal. i called the ATF to ask them if it was legal for me to transport the to Florida and back

they told me this

first they asked why i wonted to take it
well first i said because i did not wont to leave it at home and i hd just bought it and planed to shoot it when i got down there.
They said that i could that is was legal in all the state down to Florida and since it was a long gun i did not need a permit.

But they also said that i could not use self defense as the reason for taking ti because if i used a ar15 to defend myself it would be condesend to much force and i could go to jail.

Is this true i have heard of alot of people owning a AR for defense and even seen the TV shows recommend it but if you can go to jail for using it why would any one have one

rem 700

If I'm ever forced to defend mine, or others' lives with firepower, I'll use any weapon at hand...and since when is a .223 too powerful? [&:]

oldelkhunter

Deadly force means just that ..any weapon that will stop the attack when your life is in imminent danger. SHotgun,Rifle,Pistol whatever as long as it is legal .

bigtim6656

well a .223 has alot of power dehind it but to me to much force is unloading a mag in the guy he is on the ground dieingand you put another mag in him any gun you have to me is not to much force it is how many bullets you put in him before and or after he starts to drops

bronko22000

They are right. The AR in 223 (5.56) is too much. If you miss, you could shoot through a wall and injure or kill someone else. I much prefer a 12 ga with 5 or 6 shot.

ipscshooter

Excessive penetration is a completely separate consideration. That is a TACTICAL reason for not using it, not a LEGAL reason for not using it.

bigtim6656

i agree ipscshooter they did not say because it might go through a wall and kill some one but said it has to muc power to use for denfese then why can the military use it in war

ipscshooter

And, to that extent, I think they are just plain wrong. If you are justified in using deadly force in self defense, I find it completely impossible to believe that the prosecutor is going to go through ballistics charts saying "This one's OK. This one's too powerful. This one depends on which load you're using. You can use a .22, but you can't use a .44 Mag. A Mini 14 is OK, but only if you've got a five round magazine... etc., etc., etc." Particularly in Florida, where self defense laws are relatively liberal (meaning expansive, not meaning politically...)

For what it's worth... a .223 doesn't really have much "power", relatively speaking, so a statement that it "has too much power for self defense" is patently absurd.

HEAD0001

It is not the power of the cartridge they were talking about IMO. They were talking about the image that the AR convey's. A so called "Militia" or "Military" image. Some prosecutor's eat that crap up. Especially the true anti-gunner's. I do not agree with this, but it is the way it is.

The AR is not a good close quarter's defense rifle. Unless you have the 16.5 inch barrel with a 9mm or 45ACP barrel. IF you notice most close quarter's SWAT operatives, they carry the MP5.

Basically it is a lot more of the politically correct crap. Tom.

driftrider

I remember reading about a test done about just this subject done by the FBI. They shot .223 Rem 55gr FMJ (old milspec) from an M-4 carbine, 12ga 00 buckshot, and 124gr 9mm ball (mil-spec) from an MP-5 through various residencial and commercial structural materials (drywall, 2x4 studs, siding, etc...) that was actually built-up into wall sections and such and then measured the penetration of the projectile in 10% ballistics gel. I was surprised that the .223 actually penetrated the LEAST gelatin, and the 9mm penetrated the most. This was attributed to the fact that the 55gr .224 bullet would become unstable and tumble after going through a wall but before penetrating the gelatin, while the 9mm remained stable.

I think this is pure BS, but what do you expect coming from a federal govt bureaucrat (certainly not that he'd actually know his job![:@]). Deadly force is deadly force. As long as the weapon itself is legal (i.e. not a sawed-off shotgun or a rifle with a barrel less than 16", not full-auto, etc...), then it is lawful to use it provided the legal requirements concerning the justification to use deadly force are met.

When I left the Marine Corps as an MP, the Provost Marshalls Office SRT team was moving AWAY from their MP-5's in favor of M-4 carbines as their standard issue CQB weapon. The reason you ask? Because perps and terrorists have learned how to put on body armor. The 9mm won't go through most modern soft body armor, but the M855 green-tip 5.56 NATO will...including most breast plates.

I could be wrong, but I believe that LAPD SWAT has also switched over to the M-4. The MP-5 is a nice submachinegun, especially on full-auto, but one penetrating hit from a .223 will take out a bag guy a lot better than a dozen hits that don't penetrate. Just ask the LAPD about their experience with 9mm vs. .223 during the Hollywood bank shootout a few years ago (you know, the one that resulted in M-4's being issued to every patrol car).

Bottom line is that, in the highly unlikely event that you may have to defend yourself or your family with deadly force...I prefer to LIVE by the saying "Better to be tried by twelve...than carried by six."

Mike