The idea of using a suppressor in a self-defense scenario may seem practical, especially for reducing noise and protecting one’s hearing. However, gun law experts Emily Taylor and Richard Hayes, known as “The Armed Attorneys,” explain the complex legal ramifications that could follow. They dive into the harsh penalties associated with using National Firearms Act (NFA) items, such as suppressors, in crimes – even in self-defense situations – highlighting a daunting 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for some federal charges.
Understanding the 30-Year Minimum

Taylor and Hayes emphasize the seriousness of the 30-year mandatory minimum sentence that could apply if a suppressor is involved in a “crime of violence,” a category broad enough to include self-defense cases. Richard Hayes explains that under federal law, the possession or use of a suppressor, even if legally owned, could trigger this sentence if it’s used in a violent encounter. This harsh penalty is designed to address criminal activities involving suppressors, machine guns, and short-barrel firearms, but it may also affect ordinary gun owners who rely on suppressors for self-defense.
The Definition of a “Crime of Violence”

Taylor and Hayes clarify that the term “crime of violence” covers a wide range of actions. According to the federal statute 18 USC Section 16, a crime of violence includes any offense that involves “the use or attempted use of physical force against another person or their property.” Hayes points out that this definition could encompass many self-defense situations, making it an unexpectedly risky area for gun owners.
Federal vs. State Law Confusion

The Armed Attorneys explain that while federal law includes severe punishments for NFA items in crimes, state laws may not always align. Emily Taylor mentions that she’s unaware of any state law specifically imposing additional penalties for using a legally owned suppressor in self-defense. However, because federal law supersedes state law in these situations, gun owners still face the risk of federal prosecution.
Federal Jurisdiction and Crimes of Violence

Hayes raises an important point about federal jurisdiction, questioning why crimes of violence fall under federal law when they traditionally fall within state law. Both attorneys express frustration with federal intervention in local matters, as it conflicts with the Constitution’s original intent. Hayes argues that federal overreach in prosecuting violent crimes complicates the legal landscape for lawful gun owners.
The Fine Line Between Self-Defense and Criminal Charges

Taylor highlights a particularly concerning legal distinction: even if you act in self-defense, the use of force could still be classified as a crime of violence. She explains that self-defense is an “affirmative defense,” meaning the defendant is essentially admitting to the act but providing justification for it. This technicality could lead to an unexpected interpretation by federal prosecutors, potentially triggering the 30-year minimum.
Rare But Possible Prosecutions

In their experience, Taylor and Hayes have rarely seen cases where self-defense incidents with suppressors led to federal prosecution. Hayes mentions that in over a decade of practice, he has not encountered a single self-defense case where a person faced the 30-year minimum due to a suppressor. Most cases involving this penalty relate to drug trafficking crimes, not self-defense. However, the attorneys acknowledge that the potential for such prosecution, even if rare, remains troubling for responsible gun owners.
Practical Concerns vs. Legal Risks

Hayes and Taylor offer practical advice for gun owners considering a suppressor for self-defense. Taylor, who personally keeps a suppressor on her home-defense firearm to avoid waking her children, admits she would advise clients against it due to the legal complications it could introduce. Although suppressors provide hearing protection and reduce noise, they can lead to a more complicated legal battle if used in a self-defense scenario.
The Courtroom Perception of Suppressors

Taylor warns that using a suppressor could have an unintended impact on a jury. Prosecutors may exploit the suppressor’s association with criminal intent, potentially painting the defendant in a negative light. Hayes agrees, adding that juries may need expert testimony to understand that suppressors are legal tools often used responsibly by gun owners, which could make the trial more costly and complex.
Environmental Factors and the Decision to Carry

The Armed Attorneys also discuss situational considerations for using suppressors. Hayes points out that while a suppressor on a nightstand gun might be reasonable, carrying one in public may create a different perception. In an everyday carry situation, a suppressor might seem unusual and even suspicious to those unfamiliar with the technology. This perception could negatively impact a self-defense claim, especially if there’s a jury involved.
Hearing Protection and Suppressors as Enhancements

Hayes suggests that the benefits of suppressors – such as preserving hearing in confined spaces – shouldn’t be overlooked, despite the legal risks. Suppressors are considered a performance-enhancing modification, improving the safety and effectiveness of a defensive firearm. Still, he notes that gun owners must weigh the practical advantages against the potential legal repercussions of using a suppressor in self-defense.
Final Thoughts from The Armed Attorneys

In their final analysis, Taylor and Hayes offer a balanced view on using suppressors for self-defense. Taylor, from a strictly legal perspective, advises against it, noting the potential for increased scrutiny and harsher penalties. Hayes, however, sees value in suppressors as safety tools, despite the legal gray areas. Both agree that while suppressors offer practical benefits, the potential legal risks make it essential for gun owners to fully understand the consequences before relying on them in a defensive situation.
Suppressors: A Double-Edged Sword?

Suppressors present a unique blend of benefits and risks for self-defense. While they can provide valuable hearing protection and reduce noise, their association with criminal activities and the federal penalties tied to their use in violence make them a double-edged sword. For gun owners, especially those considering a suppressor for home defense, Taylor and Hayes underscore the importance of being aware of the legal implications. The 30-year minimum may be unlikely to come into play, but when it comes to self-defense, the stakes are high enough to make any possibility worth careful consideration.
Is the Punishment Excessive?

What do you think? If suppressors are legal and owned responsibly, should their use in self-defense still carry such severe penalties, or does this punishment seem excessive? Do you think the risks associated with using a suppressor in self-defense outweigh the potential benefits, like preserving hearing during an emergency?

A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa writes about homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Whether it’s canning vegetables or setting up a rainwater harvesting system, Lisa’s goal is to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.