Opening a can of Worms - Modified Handguns

DAVE_M · Mar 5, 2015

kingfhb said:
I have heard for years that "Attorneys MAY do this..." and "Attorneys MAY do that...", but I have YET to see a case anywhere in the country that played out against the shooter because he/she was using a weapon that had been "modified", upgraded, or otherwise. If these attorneys (and I know PLENTY of them) are so good at what they do, and they thought it would help their case, WHY HASN'T IT BEEN SUCCESSFULLY DONE YET?????

The argument has been made... several times, however, it has never played out against the shooter. There are too many variables that could be used and would never allow the complaint to stick.

1. The purchase of a used weapon where modifications have been made. It could be your first weapon, therefore you would never know any difference from a factory setup as opposed to a "modified" setup for that weapon.

2. Several Firearm manufacturers have begun releasing PRE-modified firearms or even licensing third party vendors to modify them for sale. (ie. "CUSTOM SHOP" firearm modifications).

3. As long as the modifications do not put the firearm in the realm of "unsafe", and the party selling the part have the authority to do so, the argument can be made that those parts are designed to work safely in that firearm and does not change its use.

4. Factory modifications (ie. a 3.5lb trigger bar in a Glock from the factory) or parts sold from the factory that allow for the modification of the firearm are available for that firearm pre or post purchase. I have purchased Glock 30s's that have come with 3.5# triggers and then had others that have had higher triggers when they purchased the same weapon. (+/-/.)

5. The same argument could be made for single action or double action pistols. Or even purchasing one handgun over another. "Why did you specifically choose that weapon to carry over another?" (modified or not)... or "Why did you choose that particular ammunition over everything else?"

6. How about AR-15 builds? If you build it up yourself... put your own trigger in it or anything else... what about adding a flashlight? A laser? A lighter handguard as opposed to an A2 setup? A Magpul Stock? Or even getting deeper, like choosing a K2 grip over a MOE grip?

7. If you load your own ammo... why did you choose that powder? Why that projectile? why that primer? etc.

8. What about accessories? Grips? Sights? Finger Extensions? Extended Magazines? ANY AND ALL Aftermarket parts for that matter. Ghost and NDS Performance would be out of business in no time.

9. What training you've taken... how often you practice... etc... etc... etc.

10. What about... "why do you have that punisher slug plug on your Glock?"... "why do you have "Kill them all and let god sort them out" on your AR receiver?... "why does your safety selector say "SAFE, and DEAD" instead of "SAFE, and UNSAFE"?

11. Some attorneys even say "If you want a lighter trigger pull, get a different gun"... but what if even that is called into question? So you modified the type of weapon you carry to be a better killer instead of just the parts inside?

As I said, literally ANYTHING can be called into question... the fact that you even choose to carry could be called into question... they can paint a picture of someone who was just out for blood, but its up to YOUR attorney to squash that.

Most if not all cases regarding modified weapons are things like negligent discharges, "accidents", police officers that have modified their weapons outside departmental specs, etc.

No Self Defense case has ever been decided based on the modifications to the firearm to the best of my knowledge.

I agree with the majority of this.

My argument was this: If I'm told to use a bone stock gun. What's the argument to prevent me from carrying a Salient Arms Blu or Nighthawk 1911? It should not matter.

kingfhb · Mar 5, 2015

DAVE_M said:
I agree with the majority of this.

My argument was this: If I'm told to use a bone stock gun. What's the argument to prevent me from carrying a Salient Arms Blu or Nighthawk 1911? It should not matter.

I agree 100%. It shouldn't matter whatsoever.

That's why I said the same argument can be made for the type of weapon you buy as well. If upgrading your weapon can be used against you, then using the same mentality of "He was out to kill!", even choosing to carry a .45 over a .380 would make you out to be someone looking to kill. Or the decision to use +P HP ammo as opposed to just HP... or even HP over FMJ for that matter. Why not use rubber bullets? Or just carry mace or some other non-lethal option? You were carrying a firearm????? and a .45 ACP loaded with 14 rounds of HP ammo? That MUST mean you intended to kill someone. -- see how dumb that sounds?

Upgrading a weapon makes firing the weapon more comfortable to the shooter or is a personal preference... the same as choosing one weapon over another... or one caliber over another.

Lets just say you lose control of your supped up corvette while driving because a tire blows or something... You get a ticket for reckless driving... then you fight it and go to court... the district attorney throws the book at you because he feels that you MUST have been speeding because you had upgraded the engine with a Turbo, or changed out the manifold, put new tires on, or a re-geared transmission. Then he tacks on some more charges simply because it's a corvette and you could have purchased a Preus and all this never would have happened.

You used your vehicle as it was intended. You don't race your car, you just upgrade it because it handles better, drives better and gets better gas mileage and looks better with the performance parts or hell, you just like to tinker with it or work on it.

It doesn't show intent to commit a crime just because you made modifications to it. Neither should a weapon in my opinion.

Someone who has owned and carried a weapon for 20 years and never used it against another individual or in a threatening manor, can be labeled with "He was LOOKING to kill someone" just because he may have a 3.5# trigger bar in his pistol that didn't ship from the factory that way? Ridiculous.

Again, also like I mentioned above, If choosing different upgrades to your weapon can "theoretically" be used against you, then why couldn't the caliber of weapon you choose, or the ammo, or the number of rounds the magazine holds, etc.? Hell, does using a suppressor mean you're going to assassinate someone? Not at all. Does modifying your weapon to fire automatic? Though illegal unless you possess the proper credentials... no... it doesn't make you a murderer or give you intent to commit a crime.

It shouldn't matter. Any of it. Period. Where does it stop? You're guilty for simply owning a weapon? Because owning it means you intended to shoot someone with it. Oh you can own it... just don't ever purchase ammo for it and you're fine!

Damn attorneys! haha... I gotta hand it to them... they are creative and do whatever they can to win.

Kraut · Mar 5, 2015

I would think that modifications that reflect an attitude versus a tangible improvement would be the ones that would haunt you in court. "You put that aftermarket spring in there so you could just fire more bullets faster, didn't you sir?" is more easily answered than "So do you think that you are, in fact, 'The Punisher,' sir? You labeled your automatic pistol with your skull logo and had it engraved to read 'The Punisher' on the slide. Is that who you think you are, sir?" People love to speculate on, and revel in suspicion of, the motives of others, and a good plaintiff's lawyer will know how to use that to their advantage. I'm just of a mind to not give extra stuff for one to possibly work with in the future.

Suburbazine · Mar 5, 2015

Let me put a new spin on this question, hopefully it will answer the original question.

I'm driving a twin turbo 2000hp Corvette down the road, otherwise street legal and illuminated properly. I get rear ended at a stop sign. Will any civil or criminal court find against me for the rear-ending? Hell no.

general mills · Mar 5, 2015

kingfhb said:
Lets just say you lose control of your supped up corvette while driving because a tire blows or something... You get a ticket for reckless driving... then you fight it and go to court... the district attorney throws the book at you because he feels that you MUST have been speeding because you had upgraded the engine with a Turbo, or changed out the manifold, put new tires on, or a re-geared transmission. Then he tacks on some more charges simply because it's a corvette and you could have purchased a Preus and all this never would have happened.

You used your vehicle as it was intended. You don't race your car, you just upgrade it because it handles better, drives better and gets better gas mileage and looks better with the performance parts or hell, you just like to tinker with it or work on it.

It doesn't show intent to commit a crime just because you made modifications to it. Neither should a weapon in my opinion.

.

Lets say when you lost control it hit a minivan. There is no proof that you were speeding or driving recklessly, but the family sues and the first exhibit the jury sees is a picture your jacked up vette with "NEED FOR SPEED" down one side and "I BRAKE FOR NO ONE" down the other. Should it matter? No. Do I want that to be me? No. Could it sway a jury to award the minivan mom some money? I think the possibility is there.

I think skulls and reapers and stuff is a bad idea on a defensive firearm, and find them in bad taste. JMHO, I cannot provide and example of when a jury has been swayed by this.

Gator 45/70 · Mar 5, 2015

This I believe is the one where the jury/judge threw this guy under the jail for his unremorseful and vane attempt to snub justice.

His truck was the main factor for the hard sentence, Go figure.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...age6.htm/RK=0/RS=NJRSE4_J_iiXf05nGsjQyUOebVE-

TTNKountze · Mar 8, 2015

As an attorney, albeit one in Texas, the issue is going to be subject to a motion on limine and almost certainly excluded as the probative value will almost certainly be outweighed by the prejudicial effect of such evidence. I've researched the issue before and never found a case where modification to the gun (so long as legal), use of handloads, etc., played any role as evidence on the case. I think some of these ideas were born of urban legend and have taken on a life of their own. Having said that there is always the possibility some of this evidence does get in front of a just at some point in the future, but given history, that does not seem likely.

Fred_G · Mar 8, 2015

At the end of the day my thought is if it's a good shoot it doesn't matter if it is with a 22 short or a 500 SW mag. If bad guy rates to be shot, he rates to be shot. Civilly I think, again in my opinion, mods would only be an issue in an accidental or unjustified shoot. That applies for civilian or LEO.

As an attorney, albeit one in Texas, the issue is going to be subject to a motion on limine and almost certainly excluded as the probative value will almost certainly be outweighed by the prejudicial effect of such evidence. I've researched the issue before and never found a case where modification to the gun (so long as legal), use of handloads, etc., played any role as evidence on the case. I think some of these ideas were born of urban legend and have taken on a life of their own. Having said that there is always the possibility some of this evidence does get in front of a just at some point in the future, but given history, that does not seem likely.

This. Good shoot or not good shoot. Now, having a 'We don't call 911' sign or some crazy engraving on your gun might lead to some civil liability. (I am not a lawyer).

Guns are potentially lethal weapons, how do you lovingly shoot someone to best help them in enjoying their life? Lethal force is justified, or it is not. Now, with all the social media, you might not want to post "I shoot to kill!" type things. I can see where that could bite you in the ass in a civil case.

I am often amused at people who say removing the safety on a gun could get you in legal trouble. OK, now, it can if you have a ND. But, in a good shoot, what does the safety have to do with anything? Whether you took the safety off with a dremell, or with your thumb, good shoot or no.

olivs260 · Mar 9, 2015

Great discussion. I'd also like to throw some more spin into this. Couldn't it be argued that modifying your gun so you can shoot it more accurately actually helped to save lives? If I can shoot better, it means less chance of hitting an innocent bystander, right?

DAVE_M · Mar 9, 2015

olivs260 said:
Great discussion. I'd also like to throw some more spin into this. Couldn't it be argued that modifying your gun so you can shoot it more accurately actually helped to save lives? If I can shoot better, it means less chance of hitting an innocent bystander, right?

That was my argument. The addition of optics on a handgun is to aid the shooter to accurately place a shot. I wear glasses, due to vision problems (obviously), so adding optics helps me.

My conclusion from this thread is don't be this guy:

However, this is acceptable modification:

Fred_G · Mar 9, 2015

Agree with the above. Modify the gun to work better, not to have silly slogans on the gun.

Opening a can of Worms - Modified Handguns

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

DAVE_M

_________

kingfhb

NRA & USCCA INST. w/ LSP#

Kraut

LEO

Suburbazine

01001000 01101001 0011111

general mills

Well-Known Member

Gator 45/70

Well-Known Member

TTNKountze

Well-Known Member

Fred_G

Well-Known Member

olivs260

Well-Known Member

DAVE_M

_________

Fred_G

Well-Known Member

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Forum statistics

Forum statistics