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.