In France, what are the legal implications of using a shooting sport firearm for self-defense at home? As some of you may be aware, when you subscribe to the French Shooting Federation to shoot for sport and do the required legal paperwork, you can acquire a firearm for the sole purpose of practicing shooting at a shooting range (you can't carry it on you; you can only transport it between your home and your shooting range). As such, the firearm is as much a sport equipment as a bow or a javelin/spear for example. The safety rules are clear: Always consider a weapon as loaded. Never point the gun toward a target you don't wish to destroy (or point it only toward a target you want to destroy). Only put your finger on the trigger when you took your aim and are ready to shoot. Be aware of your target and its surrounding (i.e. if it goes through, make sure no one is behind). Along with the safety rules, you have one specific rule in the French Shooting Federation flier (this one is from 2016) that says (page 4): interdiction absolue de viser quelqu’un sous peine de radiation Which translates into: &quot;It is strictly forbidden to target someone/point your gun toward someone; if you do, you will be banned&quot; (i.e. most likely your license will be revoked, your firearm(s) will be taken away, and you will be on the files of people who are forbidden from owning a firearm). Now, let's assume I am a law abiding citizen who acquired a firearm for leisure shooting at a shooting range, which I am storing unloaded in a locked safe at home. Someone breaks into my home and I end up in a life threatening situation (either one of my family members or myself). I somehow manage to have my firearm loaded with a chambered round and use it to threaten the assailant. If the assailant decided later on to sue me for improper usage of a sport firearm, what would be the legal consequences for me (the leisure shooter who acquired a firearm only for sport)? What if I shot and injured the assailant?
Although the assailant (or their estate if they are killed) could lodge a claim for damages it does not necessarily follow that they would win - they would have to show that the shooting was not legitimate self-defence but rather was unlawful by, for example, negligence or use of excessive force - say by shooting them when they didn't pose an immediate and unjustified threat. The Federation rules, as far as I can see, are not actual legislation. Although they should be adhered to in normal circumstances, this shooting would be, in the given circumstances, legitimate self-defence according to Article 122-5 of the Code Pénal which says: N'est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, devant une atteinte injustifiée envers elle-même ou autrui, accomplit, dans le même temps, un acte commandé par la nécessité de la légitime défense d'elle-même ou d'autrui, sauf s'il y a disproportion entre les moyens de défense employés et la gravité de l'atteinte. N'est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, pour interrompre l'exécution d'un crime ou d'un délit contre un bien, accomplit un acte de défense, autre qu'un homicide volontaire, lorsque cet acte est strictement nécessaire au but poursuivi dès lors que les moyens employés sont proportionnés à la gravité de l'infraction. Which Google translates to English as: The person who, in the face of an unjustified attack on himself or others, performs, at the same time, an act ordered by the necessity of the self-defense of himself or of others, is not criminally liable, except 'there is a disproportion between the means of defense employed and the seriousness of the infringement. The person who, in order to interrupt the execution of a crime or an offense against property, performs an act of defense, other than intentional homicide, when this act is strictly necessary for the aim pursued, is not criminally liable. provided that the means employed are proportionate to the gravity of the offense.
Almost certainly, there is no such right. It's illegal under 18 USC 831 to possess "nuclear material" without specific authorization. 18 USC 832 forbids the possession of a "radiological weapon". If there is intent to use the device to cause death, serious bodily injury, or damage to property or the environment, that's also a violation of 18 USC 2332i. I don't think these laws have been explicitly tested against the Second Amendment, but related cases suggest they would hold up (if the challenge wasn't simply dismissed as frivolous). The Second Amendment doesn't grant a blanket right to own weapons. Federal law, 18 USC 922 (o) makes it unlawful to own a "machinegun" (as defined in the statute), and in the case of Hollis v. Lynch, the Fifth Circuit held that this law was constitutional, because, as they said, the Second Amendment only protects weapons that are in "common use [...] for lawful purposes like self-defense." This case doesn't seem to have been appealed further, but the reasoning cited by the Fifth Circuit comes from the Supreme Court's opinion in D.C. v. Heller. If machineguns aren't in "common use", and therefore not protected, surely the same would apply to nuclear weapons.
Bob can probably print the firearm for personal ownership if Bob is not prohibited from possessing a firearm himself, but after that it gets problematic. This is ignoring any potential safety violations and liability issues or patent violations which might arise. According to an ATF spokesman quoted in this article : it is legal for Americans to build their own firearms without a license so long as they are not prohibited by law from possessing firearms, the firearms are legal to own, for personal use, and not for sale or transfer to others. Whether the gun parts are printed, created by other ways of manufacturing, or legally purchased from a licensed dealer has no impact on whether it is legal for an American to build a gun for personal use, though some states like California have placed additional requirements on the process. So transfer of ownership is possibly problematic. It's notably not a way to avoid normal firearm possession restrictions : Knight [the ATF spokesman] emphasized it is not legal for felons or somebody otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms to build their own guns under any circumstance. &quot;Title 18 of the United States Code, section 922(g) prohibits several categories of persons (i.e., persons convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year) from possessing firearms in or affecting interstate commerce,&quot; Knight said. &quot;Title 18 of the Unites States Code, section 922(d) prohibits persons from disposing of any firearm to a person the transferor has reason to believe is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law.&quot; Finally there's a rather crucial point to note about the design of such firearms : He said the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 outlaws the manufacture or possession of firearms that can pass through a walk-through metal detector or X-ray machine commonly employed at airports without being detected. &quot;A person or manufacturer cannot produce an undetectable firearm as prescribed in Title 18 of the United States Code, section 922(p),&quot; he said. So making a weapon that's undetectable by a metal detector is not allowed (at least according to the ATF).
I think that the language In consideration of permission to use, ... Recreational Sports Department ... arising from, but not limited to, participation in activities, classes, observation, and use of facilities, premises, or equipment. would be read as limiting the waiver to cases in some way connected with the RSF. Even so limited it is rather broad, and may not be enforceable. In particular public facilities are not always allowed to obtain a waiver of otherwise valid negligence claims. If it were interpreted to mean "all claims on any matter, even ones having nothing at all to do with the RSF" then I think it would be so broad as to be unenforceable as unconscionable, and as misleading, so that there was no meeting of minds.
In Florida, as in most common-law jurisdictions, you may legally use force to defend yourself and others from someone else's imminent physical assault. Florida makes it explicit. 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person. (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force. The force you're defending against must be imminent, though. You can't just believe you may be in danger; you have to believe you are. Further, you must reasonably believe not only that use of force is necessary to defend against that danger, but also that you have to use that much force. Once you believe any of those statements to be false, or any of those beliefs become unreasonable, you're no longer protected by 776.012. If you continue to use force past that point, you're no longer defending; you're attacking. Yes, there may be criminal charges. I mean, use of force is illegal by default, and justified or not, you did just knock a guy out. The government has a duty to ensure that your use of force was lawful, and if it finds reason to believe otherwise, you may be charged. Yes, you might be held liable for the attacker's medical expenses. Mix Tape Guy is likely to try to sue in any case. He has some small chance of winning, partly because civil and criminal trials present different burdens of proof. If you weren't charged, or were found not guilty (and didn't get off on a technicality), then that chance remains pretty small. But if you are tried and found guilty of assault, you're much more likely to lose. Yes, you might be held liable for damage to the restaurant etc. Same story as with Mix Tape Guy. The outcome will depend heavily on the outcome of the criminal trial. If you weren't charged, or you were found not guilty, then you're less likely to have to pay to fix the restaurant. If you're tried and found guilty, you'll almost certainly have to chip in.
First of all, we need to determine what laws this new hybrid gun falls under. We got a normal shotgun, which in itself might be under the National Firearms Act (NFA) a Class 3 Destructive device, but most aren't. So, let's assume &quot;Shotzooka&quot; is a standard Remington 870. Because Billy wants his gun to be more compact, he shortens the gun with a telescopic stock. Great, there are 2 options for that: a full stock that can be lengthened and one that is pretty much folding out completely. This can be a problem if the total gun in its shortest configuration gets below 26 inches length - then it is illegal under Texas law as a short barrel firearm. And the complete removal makes it no longer a shotgun under federal law but pushes it to a different weapon category: Any Other Weapon. Since it once was a proper shotgun (which means it had a stock) it can't ever become a Pistol Grip Firearm. Now, here comes the crux: owning and operating these is totally fine if you have them registered at the Bureau of Alcohol Tabacco and Firearms. But you need to register your intent to manufacture them before you start with the conversion and have the approval of your project. It also costs 200$ tax -but you need to also make sure your new gun is allowed locally (see below). The Laser sight likely isn't a problem... but now comes the really big problem: The laser-guided anti-tank missile. THAT is a problem. Because anti-tank weapons are explosive and all explosives are classed as Destructive Devices under the NFA (well,technically that's Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 amending the NFA of 1934...). And possession of such a Title II weapon like a Destructive Devices demands them to be registered and tax-stamoed for 200$ federally - and manufacturing them is prohibited for private citizens. This means in the act of mounting the missile to his shotzooka he turned her into an illegal, unregisterable NFA Class3 DD of the explosive type, illegally manufactured it, and just for the possession alone put himself up to a fine of 250k and 10 years jail time: The charge of unlawful possession of a destructive device in violation of the National Firearms Act carries a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine. But the trouble doesn't stop there, Texas itself has a penal code that defines that anti-tank missile somewhere! Texas Penal Code, Title 10, Chapter 46: 46.01 DEFINITIONS (2) &quot;Explosive weapon&quot; means any explosive or incendiary bomb, grenade, rocket, or mine, that is designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury, death, or substantial property damage, or for the principal purpose of causing such a loud report as to cause undue public alarm or terror, and includes a device designed, made, or adapted for delivery or shooting an explosive weapon. (10) &quot;Short-barrel firearm&quot; means a rifle with a barrel length of less than 16 inches or a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches, or any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle if, as altered, it has an overall length of less than 26 inches. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells: (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice: (A) an explosive weapon; (B) a machine gun; or (C) a short-barrel firearm; Sec. 46.09. COMPONENTS OF EXPLOSIVES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly possesses components of an explosive weapon with the intent to combine the components into an explosive weapon for use in a criminal endeavor. OUCH! See that? The mounting of the missile launcher just turned the gun highly illegal, and even in the act of shortening the shotgun by altering the stock to be telescopic, it might have become illegal if the gun became too short. And it gets worse. The mere possession of the guided missile is impossible unless it's a curio or relic (which would mean it is old!) or registered, but it can't be because private citizens can't make it... and even owning the parts for the missile would be illegal if they would be used in a crime... wait, manufacturing of a missile is a crime, so owning the parts also is a crime! tl;dr: Billy is screwed under both texas and federal law.
The terminology used may vary some by jurisdiction, but in many it will be said that Bob provoked the confrontation, or that Bob was the aggressor, or that Bob was engaged in a felony and so cannot claim self-defense. This fact patter is highly unlikely to arise in real lie, because if Bob has even a half-competent lawyer, the issue of self-defense, sure to fail, will not be raised. Doing so only wastes the court's time, and may well make them think worse of Bob, which may cost him. In less open-and-shut cases, the general rule is that one who provokes a confrontation, or who is the aggressor, may not claim self-defense. But the exact rule varies by jurisdiction, and the line will be drawn in different ways in different jurisdictions. In some one who seeks a confrontation may be denied a right of self-defense.
It is a good idea for a story: that’s why it’s a trope It features (with drugs instead of guns) as the core plot point of 2019’s Knives Out. Shooting someone with a BB gun is problematic because it’s hard to see what legal justification there could be for that type of assault. However, if we instead thing of paint ball guns, C is a murderer and A &amp; B have committed no crime. Real life examples: While performing a suicide scene in a production of Mary Stuart by Friedrich Schiller in Vienna, actor Daniel Hoevels￼ accidentally slit his own neck, as the theatre company's order for the originally sharp knife to be dulled for the stage was overlooked; a police investigation never determined who was responsible, or whether it was due to negligence or a deliberate attempt to kill or injure him. The wound was almost fatal, but Hoevels quickly returned to the stage after emergency treatment in the hospital. Never treat a blank in a gun as harmless. They can maim or kill you. Anyone who says otherwise is not your friend. Read the article here on Gun Safety for more details. There have even been two sad cases listed in Fatal Method Acting: Brandon Lee, accidentally killed during The Crow because the crew left a cartridge in the barrel before loading the blanks, which then hit his spine; and actor Jon-Erik Hexum, who in-between takes of the show Cover-Up, goofed around with a gun and by firing it into the side of his head, had a blank cause enough trauma to shatter a quarter-sized piece of his skull and propel the pieces into his brain. More than 20 illusionists have been killed performing the 'bullet catch' trick. It is generally considered the most dangerous magic trick as so many things can go wrong. Some of those killed were murdered when someone (often their partner/assistant) substituted a live round for the blank or—in earlier days, when single-shot black powder guns were used—placed the ball back in the barrel after it had been removed.