PDA

View Full Version : Liability of Gun Mods


bear93445
09-05-2007, 12:52 PM
I have heard and read many stories about the liability issues surrounding using reloads for defensive purposes and I began to wonder about the liability of firearm modifications.

For example, I have an M&P 40 that I had a trigger job done to. I would like to put this firearm into service as my home defender. If I had to use this gun could or would a DA look at the trigger job in the same way as reloaded ammo?

rkt88edmo
09-05-2007, 1:16 PM
I don't think there is a consensus answer about gun mods or even reloads for that matter. This is the perfect kind of question that you can read on for hours as people debate it, I am sure there is a wealth of that reading material available at glocktalk, thefiringline and thehighroad.

Things seem to break down along 3-4 lines; the Ayoob position, the Mas is full of it position, the I don't care what anyone else says I want the best tools position, and the I'm not sure but I don't want to risk it position.

It'll be interesting to see what the calguns consensus is. I think I fall into "I want the tools that will serve me best" position. The primary threat is far greater than the secondary threat.

CSDGuy
09-05-2007, 1:34 PM
If it's a good shoot, your only worry might be with a civil suit later. I have not heard of very many people losing a civil suit (against them) if the initial shoot is good.

-hanko
09-05-2007, 3:09 PM
It'll be interesting to see what the calguns consensus is. I think I fall into "I want the tools that will serve me best" position. The primary threat is far greater than the secondary threat.
You're right on. I'm STILL waiting for a cite on a case in which a lawful shoot was invalidated because of a modified gun and/or reloaded ammunition.

Mas does an excellent job in preparing you for what happens after you shoot; I've taken his noobie and intermediate courses on his own turf. I'll grant you he can be full of himself:D

Properly trained, you'll react to save your skin and not wonder if a DA or civil attorney will prosecute after the fact...if you worry about that beforehand, why carry??:eek:

I'd rather live and be sued later, though I can't seem to find precedent that that's gonna' happen. There's a lot of internet attorneys who seem to think the opposite:o

-hanko

EastBayRidge
09-05-2007, 3:23 PM
"I'm not sure but I don't want to risk it position."

Hey, that's me !

Plenty of good defensive ammo available. See what your local PD is carrying, fire a bunch through your pistol to make sure it works.

It's all a question of risk management. I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six, but I also don't want to pay lots of my hard earned cash to the family of some goblin, and I sure as hell don't want to give an eager-beaver DA or plaintiff's lawyer the chance to hang his hat on anything either...

Paratus et Vigilans
09-05-2007, 4:29 PM
I read Ayoob's columns too, and while I appreciate the fact that he's an expert witness and that he renders his opinions in courtrooms all over the country, the bottom line is that he's just an expert witness, and he makes his living by expressing his opinions. I think he's way overcautious in what he advises, but then again, if he were to say otherwise, what would be newsworthy about his opinion?

As a lawyer, and one who tries cases in the courtroom, I'm a whole lot less enthralled by the opinions of expert witnesses of any kind. Personally, I don't lose a wink of sleep worrying about what I'm going to do after I plug a home intruder. Does some aggressively ambitious DA or smart *** tort lawyer (of dubious skill and/or moral fiber) for the bereaved next of kin of my dead scumbag intruder want to ask me on the stand why I used the particular gun and the load I used to plug the scumbag that broke into my home? Fine. My answer is simple: I chose that gun and that ammo to maximize my chances of killing any intruder who would be so bold as to break into my home with me in residence, because I know from the evidence of past incidents of such break-ins elsewhere that such an intruder has got to be either a deranged psychopath or in a drug induced frenzy to take such a risk, and either means to do me harm or doesn't care about hurting or killing me if that suits his needs and purposes. That is why I keep and bear arms, and that is why I practice with them, and that is why I chose that gun and that ammo. I obviously chose well, and have no regrets about killing the scumbag intruder. That's the truth, and that ought to be good enough, and I'm not going to hamstring my home defense plans on the chance that some DA or tort lawyer of questionable morals will later challenge me on it.

People spend WAAAY too much time being scared of lawyers and the legal system. Hell, sometimes I WISH that I was that scary! :D Life would be easier if only it were so!

That being said, as with OLL's, everyone has their own comfort level and their own conscience. They need to follow their own path and listen to their own heart, not do what is good or comfortable or right for someone else.

dfletcher
09-05-2007, 6:27 PM
The reason you don't want to use reloads is because juries are ignorant and it allows a prosecutor or civil attorney to attempt to turn this into a liability for you. If you have reloads or a modified gun I would think - having to deal with attorneys & the police myself from time to time - that the attempt will be made to paint you as the bad guy. Will it stick? Who knows, but why saddle your defense attorney with another chore? Let him spend his time attacking the weasel who caused the problem and painting you as someone who walks on water. Do your best to keep clean hands.

EastBayRidge
09-05-2007, 6:32 PM
"People spend WAAAY too much time being scared of lawyers and the legal system."

Hell, I'm a lawyer (transactional, not litigation) and sometimes I scare myself ! Or maybe that's just the mirror... :D

Your confidence in your courtroom skills, as well as knowledge of what to expect, does you credit; others (myself included), not having the benefit of such experience, would rather avoid the question altogether. As you say, everyone to their comfort level and conscience.

On a more practical note (and to satisfy my curiosity), would handloads actually be any more effective as a home defense round than, say Remmie Golden Sabers or Winchester Rangers ?

bwiese
09-05-2007, 6:45 PM
Some of the concerns about mods may be due to issues of "it was an accident".

If you had an 'accident', it was negligent and you committed anything from tablecide thru manslaughter to homicide.

[If you were in a position to have reasonably shot a perp and you DID accidentally shoot the dude thru trigger negligence, you'd probably be better off saying you intentionally did it!]

However, if the shoot is good, the gun issues will not play a major part. There is no need - esp in a busy DAs office - to examine the gun beyond overall surface generalities.

In a self-defense scenario, you'd better be saying some or more of the following, "I did it, I was in fear for my life/family, he was advancing against me while armed, he was threatening to 'waste me' and refused my multiple orders to stop. I fired until he stopped advancing."

Given the clownsmanship we've seen in CA from police, DA and DOJ organizations supposedly competent in firearms matters and laws, do you think these guys are even smart enough to recognize a gun with a (quality) modification that looks stock? (Assume a reasonable trigger and not one that is so light a hamster sneeze sets it off.)

rkt88edmo
09-05-2007, 8:07 PM
So the BFG 9000 may not be a good nightstand gun?

EastBayRidge
09-05-2007, 9:48 PM
"So the BFG 9000 may not be a good nightstand gun?"

Nope. Stick with a phase plasma rifle, in the 40 watt range. With factory power cells, of course. :57:

Dont Tread on Me
09-05-2007, 9:59 PM
Massad Ayoob has written a lot on this subject. He has researched many trials and has been involved as an expert witness himself.

His advice is to keep away from modifications other than installing heavier triggers and to use factory ammo. This advice seams rooted in civil liability trials where the BG's family lawyer paints the BG as a saint and you as a crazy who hand built ninja killer bullets. He also claims that good guys have been accused of accidently shooting because of light triggers. With revolves, he advises DAO so you cannot be accused of cocking the revolver and having a ND.

I'm just relaying what Ayoob has written.

artherd
09-05-2007, 11:16 PM
Some of the concerns about mods may be due to issues of "it was an accident".

If you had an 'accident', it was negligent and you committed anything from tablecide thru manslaughter to homicide.
LOL! :D

Consult your attorney, but I myself am not overly concerned about reloads or gun mods in a defensive weapon.

Paratus et Vigilans
09-06-2007, 8:22 AM
Massad Ayoob has written a lot on this subject. He has researched many trials and has been involved as an expert witness himself.

His advice is to keep away from modifications other than installing heavier triggers and to use factory ammo. This advice seams rooted in civil liability trials where the BG's family lawyer paints the BG as a saint and you as a crazy who hand built ninja killer bullets. He also claims that good guys have been accused of accidently shooting because of light triggers. With revolves, he advises DAO so you cannot be accused of cocking the revolver and having a ND.

I'm just relaying what Ayoob has written.

My criminal law professor in law school, who had been a DA in a rural Oregon county (is there any other kind of county in Oregon?) used to say (laughingly) that he never tried a shooting case where the defendant admitted to pulling the trigger. It was always, "The gun just went off!"

I appreciate what you're saying, and what Ayoob says in his articles, but what the heck is an "accidental" shooting? I can see shooting someone by mistake, as in a mistaken identity, or a mistake as to the intent of the "shootee," but to me, that's not an "accident." It's a mistake. You intended to shoot, but you shot the wrong someone, or you shot someone for the wrong reason. The intent to shoot takes it out of the "accident" realm, for me.

Basic gun safety and training says that your finger stays off the trigger until you've made the decision to shoot. Once the decision is made, it's either correct or a mistake, but never an accident. Putting your finger on the trigger before you have identified a target and made the decision to engage it is unsafe, careless, stupid, etc., but also not an "accident." Your brain told your finger to get on the trigger, it didn't go there of its own volition.

The only real "accidental" shooting situation I can think of is where you grab for the gun in haste or in the dark and, in the course of doing so, you get your finger on the trigger and discharge the weapon unintentionally. Odds are, if that happens, the round is going into the wall, your foot, the bed, or the ceiling, and not down the hallway into the intruder. Of course, there's always the "butter side down" effect to account for, isn't there? :o

Dont Tread on Me
09-06-2007, 8:45 AM
but what the heck is an "accidental" shooting?

His saying that attorney will argue you understandably pointed a gun at a strange person in your house. However, the gun went off because you had such a light trigger. There would have been no reason to shoot the BG as he was a saint who just mistook your house for a friends and must have instantly raised his hands and said "Don't shoot sir."

The argument that the lawyer is using is that a light trigger will lead to a ND under stress.

RANGER295
09-06-2007, 8:57 AM
My criminal law professor in law school, who had been a DA in a rural Oregon county (is there any other kind of county in Oregon?) used to say (laughingly) that he never tried a shooting case where the defendant admitted to pulling the trigger. It was always, "The gun just went off!"

I appreciate what you're saying, and what Ayoob says in his articles, but what the heck is an "accidental" shooting? I can see shooting someone by mistake, as in a mistaken identity, or a mistake as to the intent of the "shootee," but to me, that's not an "accident." It's a mistake. You intended to shoot, but you shot the wrong someone, or you shot someone for the wrong reason. The intent to shoot takes it out of the "accident" realm, for me.

Basic gun safety and training says that your finger stays off the trigger until you've made the decision to shoot. Once the decision is made, it's either correct or a mistake, but never an accident. Putting your finger on the trigger before you have identified a target and made the decision to engage it is unsafe, careless, stupid, etc., but also not an "accident." Your brain told your finger to get on the trigger, it didn't go there of its own volition.

The only real "accidental" shooting situation I can think of is where you grab for the gun in haste or in the dark and, in the course of doing so, you get your finger on the trigger and discharge the weapon unintentionally. Odds are, if that happens, the round is going into the wall, your foot, the bed, or the ceiling, and not down the hallway into the intruder. Of course, there's always the "butter side down" effect to account for, isn't there? :o

I think you are assuming too much. Most people probably come out with their finger on the trigger. Most people are not as well trained as most of us and even some people that are generally pretty safe with a weapon can under the pressure of the situation, do things that they normally would not do.

As to the original question, any mods that I have on any weapon I would use for defense are mods that a layman would never notice. I do not worry about mods at all. My goal is not to kill the intruder, it is to neutralize the threat by whatever means are necessary. If that means killing him, then that is the way it goes. People could say that is the same thing but it isn’t. One position the emphasis is on killing someone, the other the emphasis is on neutralizing a threat even though there is a very high likely hood that it will kill the person presenting that threat.

I never use reloads for defensive purposes just because of reliability. There are plenty of great defense rounds out there that I could never make anything better than, and I have had feeding problems from time to time with a batch of my reloads. I am dealing with the lives of myself and my loved ones, saving a bit of money reloading is pointless.

Dont Tread on Me
09-06-2007, 9:02 AM
most people probably come out with their finger on the trigger.

Even if you are well trained and don't come out with your finger on the trigger, a scum bag lawyer is going to try and paint a picture that you did. Ayoob is arguing that a heavy trigger takes this away.

I'm personally a judged by 12 rather than carried by six guy. No point dying for fear of going to jail. I'd survive jail.

rkt88edmo
09-06-2007, 9:11 AM
Heard of sympathetic response? Some people still do things they "know" they shouldn't in spite of their training when faced with a life or death event. even if they were totally lucid during the event, they may not be afterwards.

My criminal law professor in law school, who had been a DA in a rural Oregon county (is there any other kind of county in Oregon?) used to say (laughingly) that he never tried a shooting case where the defendant admitted to pulling the trigger. It was always, "The gun just went off!"

I appreciate what you're saying, and what Ayoob says in his articles, but what the heck is an "accidental" shooting? I can see shooting someone by mistake, as in a mistaken identity, or a mistake as to the intent of the "shootee," but to me, that's not an "accident." It's a mistake. You intended to shoot, but you shot the wrong someone, or you shot someone for the wrong reason. The intent to shoot takes it out of the "accident" realm, for me.

Basic gun safety and training says that your finger stays off the trigger until you've made the decision to shoot. Once the decision is made, it's either correct or a mistake, but never an accident. Putting your finger on the trigger before you have identified a target and made the decision to engage it is unsafe, careless, stupid, etc., but also not an "accident." Your brain told your finger to get on the trigger, it didn't go there of its own volition.

The only real "accidental" shooting situation I can think of is where you grab for the gun in haste or in the dark and, in the course of doing so, you get your finger on the trigger and discharge the weapon unintentionally. Odds are, if that happens, the round is going into the wall, your foot, the bed, or the ceiling, and not down the hallway into the intruder. Of course, there's always the "butter side down" effect to account for, isn't there? :o

Paratus et Vigilans
09-06-2007, 9:21 AM
His saying that attorney will argue you understandably pointed a gun at a strange person in your house. However, the gun went off because you had such a light trigger. There would have been no reason to shoot the BG as he was a saint who just mistook your house for a friends and must have instantly raised his hands and said "Don't shoot sir."

The argument that the lawyer is using is that a light trigger will lead to a ND under stress.

I hear what you're saying, and not to belabor the point, but if the trigger is so light that the firearm will discharge with no finger actually on the trigger, then that firearm is unsafe and should not be in your home or your hands.

In answer to the argument that a light trigger led to a ND, the answer to that argument is not to argue that the shooting was unintentional. Period. Proper handling of the gun, assuming it does not go off without a pull of the trigger, will result in exactly zero unintentional shootings. I'm not a criminal defense lawyer, and have never defended a civil suit for wrongful death or personal injury from a shooting, but even so, it seems to me that it is a losing argument to assert that the shooting of an intruder was unintentional. That makes the defendant look like an incompetent fool. Now, maybe the defendant IS an incompetent fool, and if that's the case, then he or she will have to pay the price for his or her incompetence, either in jail time or in dollars. If one does not know how to safely handle his or her firearms, one is unwise to have them around and should expect to pay the piper when something bad happens.

I don't have "tuned" triggers on any of my handguns. I personally don't see a need for them. But that's just me. I'm comfortable with the stock triggers on my handguns. My handguns are for in-home self-defense first, and secondarily for fun shooting at the range. I work on mastering my control of the gun "as is" rather than customizing it to suit my personal shooting shortcomings. I've practiced enough with each of my handguns to be confident that, if I have to use it in the house for self defense, the rounds are going to go where I want them to go. If I need a gun outside the house, I'm going to use a long gun, not a pistol, and plan and practice accordingly. I haven't yet gotten into pistol bullseye shooting. If and when I do, I'll be more concerned about having a lighter trigger pull on my competition pistols, I'm sure. I don't have a problem with "trigger jobs" per se, but if the pull is so light that the gun will discharge without a finger on the trigger at all, then the gun is unsafe for all purposes, including home defense.

Bottom line, the RKBA is and should be unfettered, but if you are an irresponsible or careless or just plain stupid gun owner, don't expect to avoid responsibility or liability for the harm you cause.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Paratus et Vigilans
09-06-2007, 9:34 AM
Heard of sympathetic response? Some people still do things they "know" they shouldn't in spite of their training when faced with a life or death event. even if they were totally lucid during the event, they may not be afterwards.


Good point - - yes, that does happen. I suppose that, under such circumstances, in defesne of the shooter, I would argue that the "sympathetic response" with all the adrenaline flowing would have overcome even a stiff stock trigger's resistence and discharged the firearm, so the lighter trigger pull was a non-issue and certainly not a "substantial contributing factor" to, or the "but for" cause of, the discharge and resulting wounding or death of the intruder.

That's why I put in the practice time at the range - - so that if and when the time comes that I need to fire my handgun in self-defense, I'm not going to have the added stress or distraction of, say, flinching at the recoil or the flash, or being wild on follow up shots. I learned a long time ago in football that "you play like you practice." That applies to everything in life, including shooting. Now, you can't really practice for handling the adrenaline rush of an encounter with an intruder, but I'd hope that my past experience in athletics of dealing with the effects of the adrenaline rush and the "fight or flight" response will help prepare me to some degree for dealing with an intruder. With luck, I'll never know the answer to that question. :D

Paratus et Vigilans
09-06-2007, 9:44 AM
I think you are assuming too much. Most people probably come out with their finger on the trigger. Most people are not as well trained as most of us and even some people that are generally pretty safe with a weapon can under the pressure of the situation, do things that they normally would not do.


I'd like to think that's not so, but it may well be.

I wonder if there's a compilation out there somewhere (other than all of the "it happend to me" columns in the magazines) of post-shooting de-briefs that addresses how the home defender actually performed?

Gun safety was drilled into me at a very young age, thanks to my grandfather and father. I know, however, that gun safety practice is not that well drilled into all, and that once people come of age and buy their own guns, the only things that seem to have any impact at all on their gun safety practices are range rules and peer pressure. Mark Twain had it right when he said that common sense is not all that common.

Again, your point is well taken. Thanks for making it! :)

DrjonesUSA
09-06-2007, 10:07 AM
I have heard and read many stories about the liability issues surrounding using reloads for defensive purposes and I began to wonder about the liability of firearm modifications.


You just answered your own question - that's all they are: STORIES with no FACTS to back them up.

While it certainly makes sense to me that a jury would look upon you less favorably if you used a tricked out AR-15 to shoot an intruder instead of granpa's ol' shotgun, there are NO specific legal cases that I'm aware of where gun modifications or the type of gun used in self-defense played ANY role whatsoever in the outcome of the trial - unless the gun was illegally owned, which may have minor implications.

I suggest you check with a lawyer such as Truanich (SP?) Michel if you are that concerned.

Everything else is hearsay.

QuarterBoreGunner
09-06-2007, 10:14 AM
In my one and only (fingers crossed) self defence shooting incident, the bad guy lived (poor performance of a non +P JHP through a short barrel Glock 30). It was a righteous shoot but during the trial of the BG, the issue of the handgun I used did come up. The ADA prosecuting attorney was able to quickly establish the fact that it was a box stock Glock, with the only modification being the addition of night sights and it became a non issue. The defense attorney was really grasping at straws by that point; the jury came back with a guilty verdict on 13 out of 14 felony charges (with enhancements for use of a firearm) and the BG won't be even eligible for parole until 2045.

But! I was sued by the SOB and part of the suite was that I "negligently discharged my firearm". I was rather happy to swear out an affidavit stating that, no, I damn well intentionally discharged my firearm, thank you very much. He lost that one too. Fool.

StukaJr
09-06-2007, 11:33 AM
Will doing one's own car repairs/tuning change the definition of an incident involving that vehicle?

Trigger and action jobs, polished ports, +% recoil/hammer/magazine springs are the kind of services offered by gun's own factory smiths - sometimes these improvements are performed when the gun goes back for manufacturing defects and factory feels the need to appease... Such alterations compensate for mass production, rough machining that become apparent when the gun is not just one of thousands that day.
I'm joining "right tool for the job" crowd - especially since my current Home Defense gun is with a gunsmith - not everything that manufacturer does in the name of "safety" is actually "safe"...
Like the magazine disconnect - how does it make my gun safer when I can't even perform a proper clearing drill without reinserting the magazine into the magwell to depress the trigger? Or how is my gun safer when trigger pull feels like it's pulling rake through gravel? Or trigger cam... Of course, I find that most of these gunsmithing improvements can be attained with thousands of dry fires and range time... (not the disconnect, of course)

Dont Tread on Me
09-06-2007, 8:12 PM
In my one and only (fingers crossed) self defence shooting incident, the bad guy lived (poor performance of a non +P JHP through a short barrel Glock 30).

I'm glad this worked out the way it should have worked out. You should have sued the BG for bleeding on your carpet.

RANGER295
09-06-2007, 8:33 PM
I was thinking about this more while I was on the road today. If you want to follow the same line of reason in terms of not having any mods on a defensive weapon, then you should not use any weapon that has had any repairs other than by the factory and you should not use any aftermarket mags. Taking it a step further, you should not use any weapon that is not brand new out of the box. Any wear on the weapon could have contributed to xyz… I could just see some over zealous DA showing some jury my favorite Sig and saying “see how thrashed this thing is? Yada yada yada…” In reality it is in top mechanical condition. I just had it factory refurbished (I got a great deal at $99), all new springs pins and all worn parts replaced… even the slide rattle is gone. Anyway my point is, you can take this line of reasoning almost indefinitely. When it comes down to it, ask yourself this, “would you rather be dead?” If not, then use whatever you are most comfortable with to defend your life should the

gazzavc
09-06-2007, 9:54 PM
So the BFG 9000 may not be a good nightstand gun?

I reckon its about as good as a Boyes Anti-Tank rifle for pesky varmit control !!:D

artherd
09-06-2007, 10:34 PM
I had a friend of mine who chased down a (multiple felon) perp, threw him through a fence, and arrested him. He had the perp charged with vandalism for destroying the fence (that he was thrown thru) :D

Pappy91W
09-07-2007, 9:07 AM
I'm kind of a money tramp, I work several jobs, one of which, I moonlight as a armed renta-cop in Down Town Los Angeles in vehicle patrol.

I carry a glock model 22, I've done a trigger job to it for IMHO making it smoother with slightly less pull on it when I need it.

For ammo, I cally exactly what the LAPD uses, Winchester Ranger SXT.

In my weapon, I carry the best tool I can for the job, if there are even more mods that will make my weapon a better tool to protect ME, I'm all for it.

My choice in ammunition is out of a thought "If it's good enough for the cops, it's good enough for me". Should I get into a shoot, and my choice of ammo is questioned, I can reply upon the round being the department issue of the PD, if it's so bad, then why does the PD carry it?

As far as mods to my weapon, Night sites so I can see the damn things at night, so I don't hose down the poor schmucks around the guy I've got to shoot and can put a round where it's supposed to go. A trigger job so I can use my weapon effectively, allowing for CONTROL of my weapon to a greater degree.

In a shoot, the LAST THING you should be thinking about is "Oh wow, will my gun get me into legal trouble"? The ONLY thing you should be thinking about is "FIGHT AND LIVE"! Articulate your reasons for your mods and ammo now, so, *IF* that unfortunate moment comes where you have to drop some guy who's trying to kill you, the ONLY thing you think about is "FIGHT AND LIVE" and you are able to articulate your actions POST FIGHT to investigators. Deal with the first threat first, be prepared for the second threat, the law, after. Be ready for both. The ley is to be able to ARTICULATE your actions, your weapon selection, your munitions selection, etc.

Modded or un modded weapon, chances are good that you will find yourself in a civil suit. Do not allow fear of law to dictate if you will live another day or not by not gaining every advantage BETTER equipment can offer you.

People using a firearm to defend themselves in the home not in a LE position, you'd do well to remember the same. If you have selected a dedicated defense weapon, use the BEST tool you can afford. If it means a lighter, smoother trigger that gives you better control over the weapon, facilitates ease of use in making it more effective in saving your life, select the best for you. It's your life..... or death.... Bu the last thing you should be concerned about in a gunfight is "will my defense tool get me into legal trouble".

Foot note: It is preached to practice, practice, practice, saving your life with a firearm if you are planning to use a firearm. What is NOT preached is to think on how to articulate why you use the equipment that you have selected to use. This too is only prudent planning. Think it out now while you are reading this, and if you do dump a would be killer with your weapon, when the investigators ask questions, when a lawyer in a civil case asks questions, you'll have the necessary answers to give. Only YOU can decide when you must use deadly force, only you can articulate the WHY of it all, and only you can get the best life saving tools you can afford. How do you want it to end?

Timberwolf
09-07-2007, 10:16 AM
Having worked on both pltf and def side in civil and criminal defense let me throw in an opinion or two.

First any weapon you either use at work or keep for home defense should be loaded with factory ammo, not reloads. A smart pltfs atty or criminal defense atty will have a field day if you use reloads claiming that you specifically mfgd the rounds with the intention to kill or maime - if anything it'll take the spotlight off te bad guy's actions, which is the intent.

Second as to mods - if you must keep it to a minimum, trigger job maybe but be prepared to explain why it was done otherwise they'll allege you're a trained pistolero just waiting for an opportunity to apply your skills; same with sights.

Just remember the more mods you do the more fuel you add to the fire.

Dont Tread on Me
09-07-2007, 1:30 PM
Having worked on both pltf and def side in civil and criminal defense let me throw in an opinion or two..

Good post. It is nice to get information from someone with this experience. Much appreciated.

boogak
09-25-2007, 4:16 PM
well, special forces, swat, etc.etc. modify their guns for specific needs. now why would we not be able to modify our guns to our needs as in home defense?
like a trigger job would make you shoot more accurately then it should be a plus in court as it would less likely to be a stray shot. oh well imo

DrjonesUSA
09-25-2007, 4:42 PM
well, special forces, swat, etc.etc. modify their guns for specific needs. now why would we not be able to modify our guns to our needs as in home defense?
like a trigger job would make you shoot more accurately then it should be a plus in court as it would less likely to be a stray shot. oh well imo


Military and police are held to a different standard than civilians.

Civilians are nuts for even wanting to own guns; any civilian that owns "assault weapons" is a certifiable terrorist nut.

In the hands of police or military, they are of course indispensable tools. :rolleyes:

boogak
09-25-2007, 4:51 PM
hmmm, i guess they forgot they used to be civillians and that one day they will return to being citizens.

DrjonesUSA
09-25-2007, 5:16 PM
hmmm, i guess they forgot they used to be civillians and that one day they will return to being citizens.


Tell that to our stupid electeds who would impose TSA-style regulations on us if they could (no weapons of any sort, no metallic implements, etc) while literally throwing assault rifles, armored vehicles, body armor, etc. etc. at cops.