Gun mods and legal repercussions for defensive carry/use:

[fatherguidosarducci]

Trigger pull?

Did the gun go off on it's own or because a finger was on the trigger?  If a finger was on the trigger wasn't that because the shooter intended to shoot the gun?  If the shooter intended to shoot does it matter if the trigger pull is 3 lbs. or 5 lbs.? 

More "thought" by people who don't understand tools/mechanics/science/reality?

If, on one hand, they say we are responsible for every bullet and where it goes then wouldn't they want us to have an accurate gun easy to hit the intended target with?  Why would they hold someone responsible for working to insure the bullets their gun fires goes where they intended and not somewhere else?

More dim/lib/prog/socialist thought processes in the courts, the judges, the juries, the prosecutors, etc.

Sights, grips, optics, reliable operation, a bushing that make the barrel stay in the same in the front of the slide, a trigger that allows firing the gun without jerking/moving it during the trigger pull, all of those contribute to helping the shooter insure the bullet goes where it was intended to go and not into an innocent bystander.

Some people are just not capable of realistic thoughts.  Used to work with some before I retired.  A real drag, as they used to say.

Could not agree more:  I'm guessing everyone on this forum agrees with this-- it's the very reason we mod out defensive carry guns, and not just competition guns.    The problem as you said, are these idiot libs who sit as judges and who a prosecuting civil attorney will choose as his/her jurors.     
I guess all it would take would be someone from Cajun gun works or CZ customs and another similar expert witness to debunk the nonsense.

[fatherguidosarducci]

I dont think common sense is the issue here. The issue is how a liberal DA looking to make a name for himself will paint a picture of a guy that was just waiting to shoot someone (even if it was justified).  He will be telling the jury how the gun was modified to fire 'easier'. And 'faster'. And to hold more bullets. And, heaven forbid if you are carrying handloads, how you made those bullets to me 'more powerful' and 'more deadly'.

 Personally, my carry guns are bone stock. I'd hate to leave my fate up to some gullible and clueless jurors that might believe the lawyers nonsense.

You nailed it.  This is exactly my concern.
Let me ask you this:  what if you buy the gun already modified:  for example, if I purchase a p-01 that already has their pro package in it.  I get it-- it's procedural semantics in that the gun was sold that way vs me buying a bone stock p-01 and then having them put in the pro package.   
But in the mind of an ignorant juror, my case is :  "your honor, the defendant bought this gun this way and it was spec'd out for reliability and defensive carry purposes."   Something to that effect........ vs "the defendant went back and made mods to a gun for the purposes of being a better killer" etc

[fatherguidosarducci]

If you don't know the 5 elements of a legally justified self-defense action you're behind the 8-ball and any gun modifications are the least of your worries. These five elements are applicable everywhere in the US, regardless of state. One can bellyache about progressive DAs, ultra-liberal states, and other things that have no bearing on these elements.

While many shooters can give you specifications of every CZ ever made and the fps of most jhp 9mm ammo, they fail miserably when asked what constitutes a justifiable SD event.

Remember, 'Stand Your Ground" is not a law. "Castle Doctrine" is not a law. Both those doctrines merely remove the obligation of a defender to retreat. There is no Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine defense. They are part of the 5 Elements of Self Defense where one of the elements of "Avoidence" is waived and not required to prove (or the prosecutor to disprove) a claim of self-defense.

Here's where you can find the 5 Elements of Self-Defense.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/

Whether it's at a criminal trial or civil trial either the prosecutor or the civil lawyer can raise any issue that they want to further their case. Thinking that a non-modified firearm gets you off from either a criminal and civil trial is folly.

Unless the firearm can be proved to have been inherently dangerous by modifications (which one should not do, like a .25 lb trigger pull) there's no harm in modifications.

Again, what counts as a modification? Changing grips, replacing the factory sight, replacing the recoil spring, etc.? If the prosecutor claimed your changing grips made your actions legally unqualified as an SD event, that's easily defeated by a GOOD SD lawyer. (A good SD lawyer is not the lawyer who drew up your will, did your land deeds, or defended you from a DUI.)

If your SD event is within the 5 elements of a legally justified SD claim, the legal gun modifications reasonably done are almost moot.

thank you for posting.  I am familiar with the 5 elements. The intent of my post was to take it beyond that-- in other words, let's assume these 5 elements are met:   will modifying your gun-- even if it's deemed within reason from our standpoint or that of a competent defense attorney-- put us at greater risk in both criminal and civil proceedings (more so the latter, where $$$ is being sought out)?

[Gunnerdad80]

Personally, I do modify my guns somewhat. But in general, it’s safe to assume that if it can be used against you, it will be. Even if  not legally successful, the court of public opinion can sometimes matter just as much.

[double-d]

Thinking that a non-modified firearm gets you off from either a criminal and civil trial is folly.

It is also folly imo to believe that following the "five elements" to a T will get someone off from either criminal and civil trials.

I'd rather follow the "5" with a bone stock firearm.

[crc4]

thank you for posting.  I am familiar with the 5 elements. The intent of my post was to take it beyond that-- in other words, let's assume these 5 elements are met:   will modifying your gun-- even if it's deemed within reason from our standpoint or that of a competent defense attorney-- put us at greater risk in both criminal and civil proceedings (more so the latter, where $$$ is being sought out)?

It could, it might, it's possible - anything is possible for a prosecutor - look at the ridiculousness of the Zimmerman and Rittenhouse prosecutions.

But, a competent SD lawyer with expert witnesses can provide a reasonable rebuttal to such prosecutions on the grounds that 'modifications' (an ill-defined term that again can be whatever the prosecution chooses to use in the trial) are not part of the SD claim.

Juries are 'finders of fact' while the judge is the presenter of the law. If the juries of the Zimmerman and Rittenhouse cases decided that the prosecution failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt in consideration of the evidence (facts) presented by the prosecution, it is more than likely that a legal gun modification would not play a significant hinge-point in the trial provided the 5 elements of an SD claim have been either proven by the defense and not disproven by the prosecution.

It's always a crap shoot anytime you are arrested and go to trial even though you are legally justified in your SD claim. That crapshoot must be weighed against the use of force in an SD event where you, your family, and a third party may be severely injured or killed.

The only way to avoid ANY trial to is do nothing and take your lumps.

[JMWalker]

If I'm the defendant in a self-defense trial, it's probably already established that I shot my attacker and I intended to shoot (out of fear for my life).  The question is whether it was justified.  I can't see how a mod could hurt me if I already admit that I intentionally shot the attacker. 

[tomboyjr]

I dont think common sense is the issue here. The issue is how a liberal DA looking to make a name for himself will paint a picture of a guy that was just waiting to shoot someone (even if it was justified).  He will be telling the jury how the gun was modified to fire 'easier'. And 'faster'. And to hold more bullets. And, heaven forbid if you are carrying handloads, how you made those bullets to me 'more powerful' and 'more deadly'.

 Personally, my carry guns are bone stock. I'd hate to leave my fate up to some gullible and clueless jurors that might believe the lawyers nonsense.

You nailed it.  This is exactly my concern.
Let me ask you this:  what if you buy the gun already modified:  for example, if I purchase a p-01 that already has their pro package in it.  I get it-- it's procedural semantics in that the gun was sold that way vs me buying a bone stock p-01 and then having them put in the pro package.   
But in the mind of an ignorant juror, my case is :  "your honor, the defendant bought this gun this way and it was spec'd out for reliability and defensive carry purposes."   Something to that effect........ vs "the defendant went back and made mods to a gun for the purposes of being a better killer" etc

 Good question. A good attorney will say that you bought that gun purposely. Whether its true or not-lol.
 I see it this way. Something like 99% of SD shootings are from within 21 feet, correct? Do you really need aftermarket sights, or a light trigger, or an  optic, or a different recoil spring, or any other gun mod to hit something that close? I know I dont.  With adrenaline kicking it I wonder how many people will even remember half of what they did.
 If a person is on trial for shooting someone, they are basically on trial for their life (in prison). If it was me, I'd want every advantage to being found not guilty, no matter how small that advantage is.

 Reminds me of a story we were told in a class, back when I carried a gun for work. A local businessman is walking to his bank at night with his cash deposits from the day. He gets attacked by a 19 yr old druggie, and shoots him. The next day the headline in the local liberal paper reads "businessman shoots teen". Not "businessman attacked by drug addict and defends himself". So he will already be guilty in some peoples eyes. Now what if some of those people are on the jury?

 Disclaimer, I lived in CT my whole life (until 4 years ago) and I know how anti-gun sentiment runs deep. Anyone who is neutral on the subject hears far more negative news than positive.
 Although I dont mod my carry guns, I'm not against modding a gun. Anyone else can do what they want.

[kefefs]

If I'm the defendant in a self-defense trial, it's probably already established that I shot my attacker and I intended to shoot (out of fear for my life).  The question is whether it was justified.  I can't see how a mod could hurt me if I already admit that I intentionally shot the attacker.

That's how I feel. The real problem is if you "accidentally" (read: negligently) hurt somebody you didn't intend to. Then mods could be used against you.

However, if you're being attacked and shoot your attacker and no one else, and admit to it, I don't see what they can do. An unscrupulous attorney is probably going to TRY and use mods against you, but hopefully your own attorney does a good enough job show the jury just how much nonsense that argument is.

A good shoot should be a good shoot. Full stop. It's crazy to me that some state attorneys would think of prosecuting an open-and-shut defence case because of something like mods.

[larryflew]

Despite what Ayoob and others might say, there has never been a case where a justified and lawful shooting has been overturned or otherwise deemed unjustified due to modifications of the gun or the type of ammunition. Nor are there any laws which state what modifications are and are not lawful to make to your gun, providing you don't turn it it into an unlicensed machine gun or something.

THIS

Just had this discussion on another forum and the guys that deal with this every day say the same thing.