News/Q&A: Legal Risks of Using Suppressors for Home Defense

Welcome to this episode of our ONLY open-access content, our weekly News/Q&A Show. A transcript of the show is available at the Law of Self Defense Blog (, with links to all relevant content mentioned.

In today’s News/Q&A Show for September 16, 2021 we touched on a broad range of questions submitted for the show, as well as questions submitted live, including:


Mohamed Noor MN Sup. Ct. Decision re: depraved mind murder

Man who shot teen on RTD bus says it was in self defense


Analyzing Very Complex Use-of-Force Scenarios?

Choice of OC Spray for Non-Deadly Self-Defense?

Permitted to Argue Self-Defense Even if Elements Lacking?

Legal Risks of Use of Suppressors for Home Defense

News/Q&A Show Every Thursday, 4PM Eastern! Open Access!

Be sure to mark your calendar to never miss a News/Q&A Show–they air LIVE every Thursday, at 4PM ET of the Law of Self Defense Members Dashboard, our Facebook page, and video playback recordings are available on each of those platforms as well as on our YouTube channel.

News/Q&A Show FREE Podcast!

Also, be aware that we are now making available the Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Show as an independent and FREE weekly podcast available on Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, Spotify, Pandora, iHeart, Stitcher, and many more podcast services. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO RECOMMEND TO FRIENDS & FAMILY! Help us grow the Law of Self Defense Community!

Free Book: “Law of Self Defense: Principles”

Finally, I’d like to offer you a FREE copy of our best-selling book, “The Law of Self Defense: Principles”.  This is a PRINT HARD COPY, not a PDF book. We cover the normal cost of the book, which is $24.95, and ask only that you cover the S&H of $8.95. You can get your own FREE copy and learn how to make yourself HARD TO CONVICT here:  “The Law of Self Defense: Principles”.


You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.

Know the law so you’re hard to convict!

Stay safe!


Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC

Nothing in this content constitutes legal advice. Nothing in this content establishes an attorney-client relationship, nor confidentiality. If you are in immediate need of legal advice, retain a licensed, competent attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.

Law of Self Defense LLC © 2021
All rights reserved.
May not be reproduced in any form.


5 thoughts on “News/Q&A: Legal Risks of Using Suppressors for Home Defense”

  1. Andrew – In a world full of people pretending to be experts but offering little value, Your podcasts are very valuable indeed. I learned a lot when I attended one of your weekend courses here in CO when you first moved into our state and I continue to gain perspective from your weekly output. Thanks!


    While a firearm is powerful, knowledge of the use of lawful force keeps one legal, safe and out of legal harms-way. As always, thank you Attorney Branca.

    1. Wishful thinking. I believe Noor and Chauvin both had knowledge of the use of force law and it didn’t keep them safe and out of legal harms way. The McCloskeys were both lawyers and had knowledge of the use of lawful force law and it didn’t keep them safe and out of legal harms way. George Zimmerman had knowledge of the use of force law and it didn’t keep him safe and out of legal harms way. Travis McMichael was a Federal law enforcement officer and his father Gregory McMichael was a carrer state law enforcement officer, they both had knowledge of the use of force law and it didn’t keep them safe and out of legal harms way. I could go on and on, but I won’t.

  3. Yeronimus Pretorius

    noor endangered his partner, and people in the neighborhood where he fired that shot. Chauvin arguably endangered floyd, but definitely nobody else, and not nearly as much as floyd endangered himself.

    1. Anytime you discharge a firearm you are endangering people for up to a mile and a half away and withing 90 degrees on either side of the muzzle. If you are exercising your constitutionally protected fundamental right to bear arms for lawful purposes, then you are justified in discharging the firearm.

      Noor had a legal right ane legal duty to act on appearances and the reasonable inferences thereof. It was perfectly reasonable for him to shoot based on his partners actions. Tbat’s not saying his partners actions were reasonable, but that’s not an issue in determing whether or not Noor’s action was reasonable.

Leave a Comment