Your Input

[ClearSightTactical]

So over the last several years there has been a ton of talk regarding 'modified' or otherwise 'non-stock' additions to primary defense weapons.

I'm curious if ANYONE can provide case reference as to when this has ever been brought up in criminal/civil trials.

The 'urban legend' goes: If you modify your weapon the attorneys will tear you apart stating that you were looking for a fight, that you wanted a "more deadly" weapon than you could purchase. That the modification was faulty and you fired "on accident". Etc.

This same thought process goes on to hand-loaded cartridges, engraved weapons, night sights, laser grips, hogue grips, extended slide stops, extended magazine releases, lighter trigger springs, polished internals, upgraded aftermarket internals, etc. etc. etc. etc.

So the challenge is: Can anyone provide a factual, recent (75 years) document to show that any of the above mentioned has ever been an issue.

PS: Please do not quote Massad Ayoob's famous "The prosecutor will ask if you think you know better than the __________ firearm manufacturing company" as that was a cop out answer, and he still provided no reference to when/where/if this has ever been asked.

 

[JimMullinsWVCDL]

Yet another good example of why you should not talk to the police, even if you're innocent.

 

[BigSlick]

Not an issue. If the case could be made against you for shooting reloads in self defense then the same issue could be raised that you practiced once a week, that you shot center mass, that you trained at Front Sight, had night sights and on and on. Just an internet myth that keeps making the rounds.

 

[trophyhunter]

I agree with BigSlick!! The Internet is a great tool. But also, It puts allot of Bullcrap at our Fingertips. (Rumors, Rumors & More Rumors ???)

 

[ClearSightTactical]

Yet another good example of why you should not talk to the police, even if you're innocent.

That has nothing to do with speaking with the police. Law Enforcement will most certainly take your firearm for evidence, and if they are so inclined to inspect it they will likely see any external modifications. I did watch that video some time back - its a great reference video, although I will say i've read contrary information, well no contrary they advise keeping your mouth shut too, but realistically don't expect you to.

Not an issue. If the case could be made against you for shooting reloads in self defense then the same issue could be raised that you practiced once a week, that you shot center mass, that you trained at Front Sight, had night sights and on and on. Just an internet myth that keeps making the rounds.

Completely agree.

 

[squisher]

Would any of that kind of argument be any different than arguing about using a "more powerful" caliber? (.22 vs 9mm vs .45 vs. .44 mag, and on and on)

I remember reading about ONE case where a handload caused a problem -- a wife allegedly shot herself using one of her husbands guns that was loaded with a light-recoil practice load, so didn't leave the normal close range powder burn type evidence, and I think it was pretty much all he could do to prove that that's how it happened (not even sure if he was successful).

IIRC, it was one of the bigger revolver calibers that he had light loads in so he could practice without [beating] his hands up. I know this is all hearsay, I will try to find the correct cite.

Final Edit:
Google-fu is weak with me today, I don't remember enough details about it, it was just an article I came across a WHILE ago (I think it was via Mr. Ayoob's writings/site somehow).

The argument against using a "modified" carry weapon (and by extension, hand-loaded ammunition) is legal wiggle room -- as in not giving the prosecutor any if you can help it. I even found discussion about using "neutrally named" weapons. As in "Don't use a Combat Commander model, use a Gold Cup Match" or something along those lines.

 

[BigSlick]

The courts today have degenerated to a point where you could file a lawsuit against a ham sandwich. If you are justified in the eyes of the law to use deadly force to defend yourself and you live in a "castle" state once you are cleared you are protected from a civil lawsuit.
The only downside I can see to using your Gold Cup Match pistol is that you may be relieved of your weapon during the course of the investigation and it could take several months before your pistol would be returned.

 

[.45 Ben]

What would make the difference between a name? The prosecuting attorneys dont give enough of a crap that matters as long as they get paid.

Suppose i shot someone with a Remington 700 from 5 feet away,because they were coming at me with a chainsaw? Maybe i used a chainsaw to kill someone who was digging into my temple with a spoon,or i used a pen against someone about to kill an innocent hostage?

The point is,and this ought be able to get past anything,you were in defense of your life.Whether unarmed or with a MAC-10 in each hand,you were stopping a threat.And the prosecuting family took you to court because "You didnt have to kill him/her."

Does a former comment imply that i could be sued or arrested because i was able to stop a threat with "Un necessary,military grade,offensive night sights" on my TRP? The amount of bs in the legal system has to go.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

What would make the difference between a name? The prosecuting attorneys dont give enough of a crap that matters as long as they get paid.

Suppose i shot someone with a Remington 700 from 5 feet away,because they were coming at me with a chainsaw? Maybe i used a chainsaw to kill someone who was digging into my temple with a spoon,or i used a pen against someone about to kill an innocent hostage?

The point is,and this ought be able to get past anything,you were in defense of your life.Whether unarmed or with a MAC-10 in each hand,you were stopping a threat.And the prosecuting family took you to court because "You didnt have to kill him/her."

Does a former comment imply that i could be sued or arrested because i was able to stop a threat with "Un necessary,military grade,offensive night sights" on my TRP? The amount of bs in the legal system has to go.

Awesome post!

 

[Itstjs]

I have heard these rumors before. Any Jury should not believe any of that bull crap. Truth is, you could base a defense on "I put a pistol grip on my shot gun so i could have better control of it incase some would be robber grabbed the weapon" or lasers to be sure you would hit your target before firing in a public area....

 

[father-of-three]

I think the scary thing these days is that the legal system has been able to look past facts, or facts shrouded in emotionally charged details. Mr Aitken of New Jersey is the perfect example of this. Most (gun) laws have an "unknowingly" clause, if I may call it that. He was unaware of the state laws regarding hollowpoint ammunition and the 15 round magazine limit. Otherwise, he followed the state laws that he was aware of, courtesy of the New Jersekstan state police website. However, even with a NRA endorsed lawyer, he was sent to jail for 7 years for 2 counts of unlawful posession of a handgun. The judge disallowed information about the law to the jury, as well as disallowing Mr Aitken to be considered under an "exemption" to the laws. The New Jersekstan legal system is so corrupt that they don't need what I will consider "emotionally charged" issues that are mentioned above.

Fortunately, not all states are this bad, but some days it seems easier to hit the lottery than have a legal leg to stand on!

 

[Axeanda45]

Modifications that will not cause legal problems,
Accuracy work, new or different sites, change of grips, checkering or stippling of frame, forward serrartions on the slide, porting, chamfering cylinders, throating feedramps, improving function of safety, finishes, control upgrades, magwells, ... this is not a complete list

Modifications not to do on a carry gun,
Deactivation of any safety mechanism, making the trigger pull too light, making the grips too smooth, using handloads, rendering a firearm non-dropsafe, this is a real short list. If it is not on this list, I would not worry about it.

Please show ACTUAL court precedence/proof or verify that this is ONLY YOUR OPINION...

 

[Axeanda45]

Change "gun" modifications to "car" modification and see if it would fly.....

Judge... this defendant put an aftermarket carburetor on his car (or whatever mods you do), so that makes him MORE guilty of driving over the speed limit......
NOT gonna happen.....