New CZ 75 Compact D PCR and CGW "defensive carry" package

[texas yankee]

I plan on using my new PCR as a concealed carry gun, after I am completely familiar with it and it has at least 500 rounds or so through it.  I never felt 100% comfortable carrying my Glock with one in the chamber, but the DA\SA mechanism of the PCR should alleviate that problem for me.  I've read nothing but good things about the CGW defensive carry package, but over the years I have read many "experts" advising to never modify a concealed carry gun because any modifications (smoothing or lightening the trigger, modifying any of the safety mechanisms, etc.) could be used against you in a courtroom.  With the defensive carry package, I'm particularly wondering about the work they'll do to "tailor the trigger pull", but also work related to "mirror polish the internal parts" - any thoughts?

[cousinmark]

I'm sure some of the more esteemed members can elaborate on the CGW defensive package. In simple terms though it will improve the overall performance and reliability WITHOUT lowering the DA or SA trigger pull too low. I'm on the wait list to send my PCR in for the PRO package and night sights. The guys at Cajun told me we could go over the various nuances of the project when the time comes to ship her in.
On your legal question my best advice would be to avoid being in "harm's way" altogether. Beyond that, KNOW your states laws and abide by them. Generally speaking there needs to be a LEGITAMATE threat to your life to justify pulling any trigger.

[Cortelli]

This is a common and often contentious point of discussion on the web.  IMHO, there are roughly two camps, with some minor "campettes" among the two camps. 

The first camp will argue that modifications to a carry gun open one up to greater liability (civil and/or criminal) if there is any way for the opposing side to argue that the modifications played a role in the shooting - making the shooting more likely or more deadly.  A minor alternative to this is that any modifications, even if shown to have had no effect on the shooting or its outcome, will add to the issues you and your defense team will have to argue against, and will potentially aid the opposing side to paint a narrative of "bad intentions" around why you carry a gun or how you intended to use the gun.

The second camp will argue that a shooting incident will rest on the application of self-defense / defense of others law, and the nature of the weapon (modified or not) will be in the end meaningless to that analysis.  Barring a negligent discharge, the shoot is good (in conformity with law) or not.  So if your position was "I meant to shoot and I did shoot"  trigger pull weight or other modifications are immaterial. To adherents of this view, carrying a firearm that performs as you wish it to to give you your most effective defense is more important than having to swat away any arguments from the opposing side regarding a gun's modifications.

I personally fall largely in the second camp with respect to most possible modifications, particularly when there are stock guns that have characteristics (like trigger pull) that very widely and can go pretty low; but others feel strongly that it is an unnecessary risk.  However, with respect to a possible negligent discharge situation, I am a lot more amenable to the first camp's arguments - in a ND, you're already in the soup, but having affirmatively made changes to a stock gun may strengthen arguments around negligence vs recklessness. 

I live in CA, and in a county where it is very difficult to get a license; when my county sheriff does issue licenses, he requires no modifications.  I have a P-06 with a CGW tuned pro package installed, and have a P-01 at CGW waiting for the bench for the same treatment.  If permitted to carry them, I would without much worry.  Sadly, that is unlikely to happen until I leave CA.
 Apropos of the above, even outside CA some CCW issuing agencies may forbid certain modifications (internal + mechanical, predominantly), which means carrying such a firearm may result in a crime (unlawful carry) or a license violation / revocation regardless of the outcome of the shooting inquiry.   

I won't be surprised if you get a lot of differing views on all this.

[Tok36]

Good input from the posts thus far.

In the past when the potential increase in liability from carrying/using a modified pistol has come up i have heard many requests for an example of such a court case. I have yet to have had anyone offer an example of such a case. I take this to mean that it is a fallacy in its entirety or exceedingly uncommon. In other words i question whether it is a valid concern.

Bear in mind that when you have CGW work on one of your CZs you have significant influence over the outcome. After they have received your CZ and the time comes from them to work on it they will call you on the phone to discuss your preferences. You can have you pistol tuned however you like. They have allot of experience in assisting CZ owners in obtaining their objectives within a project.

[texas yankee]

I'm the OP - thanks for the responses so far - no doubt that CGW can "improve the overall performance and reliability", but what I'm concerned with is a potential for someone to make the case that I made the gun less safe by lowering the trigger pull, among other things, even if the trigger pull was done "WITHOUT lowering the DA or SA trigger pull too low" - too low is subjective, IMHO, and thus an opening for a good attorney to make a case against me.  It is indeed a slippery slope.

[The Guardian]

Had some folks ask me about traveling across country with a firearm for personnel protection and how to do it legally. Bottom line is even if you do everything to the best of your ability there is absolutely no way to be in total compliance through every state, county, city, municipality. Unfortunate, but reality none the less. Basically it came down to.....do what you feel necessary to be able to protect yourself and hope that it never comes to that. Trying to predict whether the ?system? will do the right thing regardless of gun modifications or not.....umm, just assume NOT and proceed accordingly.  The system is people, people are flawed....hence the system is flawed. Not trying to be negative, just some reality 

[cousinmark]

...I wouldn't overthink things dude? There is no black and white answer to your question. Presuming you are legally allowed to own/carry a handgun for self defense in your state. A handgun that has had a "reliability" job done on it isn't something unreasonable. It's actually arguable that it's necessary for a defensive weapon? A good attorney would have no problem clarifying the details of the work done on the pistol. The circumstances involved in a hypothetical shooting are what's most important. Things are a little different from state to state but the bottom line is the use of lethal force is only justified in DIRE circumstances. If there are are other options the use of any firearm in an altercation will normally be viewed as a crime. Simply know your states laws and abide by them.

[cntrydawwwg]

In the past when the potential increase in liability from carrying/using a modified pistol has come up i have heard many requests for an example of such a court case. I have yet to have had anyone offer an example of such a case. I take this to mean that it is a fallacy in its entirety or exceedingly uncommon. In other words i question whether it is a valid concern.

   This right here. I have yet to ever see a verified court case where a law abiding citizen was charged for legally modifying their pistol and defending themselves. [emoji6]
    YMMV

[Tyerone]

Sounds like dribble I've read from Ayoob (sp?).

My take on it is that self defense should not be taken lightly; one must be responsible!

Therefore, "Why would a good guy use those 'cop-killer' bullets"?  I'll reply with something like, "Since they are popularly used by law enforcement, they must have been thoroughly tested.  In fact, Federal HST, 147gr has proven to adequately expand its diameter into gelatin WITHOUT penetrating over a maximum limit set by FBI protocols.  It would be irresponsible to knowingly select a bullet that would penetrate too much, perhaps hitting an unintended bystander behind the perp.  This same bullet will maintain it's momentum through glass, for instance not deflecting who knows where like some light weight high velocity bullet might.  Again, why risk potential by-standers with a lesser round?  Additionally, I wanted to ensure that god-forbid it came to this, that I would adequately stop an attack in protection of my self and loved ones".

Prosecutor:  "So, you've obviously modified your pistol with a hair trigger, just waiting to go off before assessing the situation, or perhaps just going off on its own!".
Response:  "No, I fired the gun intentionally in self defense and have never had an negligent discharge in all my practicing.  I originally had a trigger so stiff that when practicing for self defense scenarios at the gun range, especially one-handed shooting I would torque the gun during the shot and miss horribly to the left or right (depending on which hand).  Just a small angle off at close range could equate to several feet at distance beyond the attacker.  I thought missing the intended target that badly would be irresponsible, potentially hitting innocent bystanders in the background.  An overly stiff trigger resulting in L/R misses is IMO why trained NY City Police actually shoot so many unintended victims.  I just couldn't be that irresponsible, which is why I invested additional money in tuning my SD gun as such".

Anyway, you get the idea.  WHY are you making such decisions about your carry gun and selection of gear?  Is it to be more responsible?  Knowing and perhaps documenting such changes and shooting results in a log for future reference could be helpful, but as others have mentioned here, a good shoot is just that.  You have more to worry about the court of public opinion, that the thug happened to be a different color than you or perhaps a different sexual orientation, etc.  Things that shouldn't "Matter" but have been allowed to cause riots with the assistance of an agenda-driven media and politicians fanning the flames for their own self interests.

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

As a few have already iterated no one has ever been able to cite a case where mods to a firearm or the ammo which is another BOGUS myth from Mr. Massengil Ayoob has ever been used in a court case against any one who legally defended themself with a firearm.
I contend that if you are in court due to your use of a firearm then it is the circumstances surrounding that use that brought you there are not the weapon or the ammo.

[Cortelli]

I understand and am somewhat sympathetic with the "no one can cite a case" argument, and the criticism of Ayoob's stated view (and his citation to a case that was defended as "I didn't mean to shoot; the gun went off") as support of his view.

But (1) we're all looking for ways to avoid potential problems and the art of avoiding problems involves avoiding those situations that haven't been conclusively proven a problem before and that might be perceived to present some challenges (approaching a problem) in the future; and (2) the nature of a self-defense claim in a firearm discharge incident against an assault / ADW / attempted murder / manslaughter / murder or any other charge (or related civil claims) basically requires the shooter to admit / claim that he was acting lawfully in using deadly force, so we're very unlikely to see such a case to test the hypothesis.  About the only time we'd see such a case would be in those instances where the defendant is permitted to argue alternative defenses (it was lawful self-defense, but if it wasn't, then it was an accident) and where defense counsel thinks arguing alternative defenses is a winning strategy before a jury.  Or where the defense argues unambiguously that the shooting was intentional and somehow a juror statement or other post-trial evidence implies that the verdict was predicted on modifications. 

Where the risk of modifications more realistically applies, IMHO, is in how others (the prosecutor; the plaintiff) thinks it strengthens or weakens their negotiating power / willingness to argue and lose / willingness to make the process the punishment before trial.  Put another way, if the prosecutor / plaintiff can use a series of facts to paint a story that might possibly fly with a jury that the defender had bad motives which calls the incident into question, then the likelihood of having to even defend the prosecution / claim in court is increased.  The thinking is that the less one has to explain about an incident, the less risk of actually having to defend oneself in a court - whether criminal or civil. The argument is about risk mitigation; not about risk elimination, and bears not just on an outcome at trial but the chances of having to go to trial.

As I stated above, the balance of risks in a shooting incident between (1) having a firearm that functions in a manner I am comfortable with and think appropriate for self-defense needs; and (2) having a firearm about which a prosecutor / plaintiff might find a small additional incentive to be more aggressive -- that balance of risks, for me (to be really clear where I stand), means I'd without reservation take a CGW defensive or pro package handgun over a stock CZ for my needs. But others might feel differently.  And not having a published case where a modification is the decisive factor in the outcome is not a really an argument that the risk is not present.  Some, including me, believe the risk is small compared to the alternative; others feel the risk is great enough (even if still small) for the benefits to make it not worthwhile.  But to dismiss the risk entirely because there isn't a clear, convincing case on record isn't a convincing argument IMHO.   

   

[Old-Duckman]

You have more to worry about the court of public opinion, that the thug happened to be a different color than you or perhaps a different sexual orientation, etc.  Things that shouldn't "Matter" but have been allowed to cause riots with the assistance of an agenda-driven media and politicians fanning the flames for their own self interests.

Well said sir...sad but, unfortunately, true.