Glock Talk banner

Conceal Carry Custom Mods Legal & Jail time ?

2K views 42 replies 18 participants last post by  Spats McGee 
#1 ·
IDK if it's true. But I tend not to much mods my handgun to much other then grips , or guide rod, minor little things , nothing extreme. Like my Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm that is my EDC .
 
#7 ·
So basically if you meant to shoot your assailant and we're acting within the law most things won't matter. You can grab your super duper race gun and blast away. If you accidentally shoot someone in the process your mods may cause you issues.
 
#8 ·
I think part of the problem with this particular issue and many of the discussions of shootings here, is that there is a tendency to try to label a shooting as either good or bad; justified or not justified, legal or illegal.
In reality while some are easy to categorize, more than a few are such that there are mitigating factors and aggravating factors and it is not unusual for the people who make the decisions as to whether or not to charge someone to disagree among themselves whether the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors or not.

It seems prudent to attempt to stack as many mitigating factors in their corner as is reasonably possible.
 
#9 ·
I think part of the problem with this particular issue and many of the discussions of shootings here, is that there is a tendency to try to label a shooting as either good or bad; justified or not justified, legal or illegal.
In reality while some are easy to categorize, more than a few are such that there are mitigating factors and aggravating factors and it is not unusual for the people who make the decisions as to whether or not to charge someone to disagree among themselves whether the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors or not.

It seems prudent to attempt to stack as many mitigating factors in their corner as is reasonably possible.
Couldn't agree more.
 
#10 ·
#11 ·
Any good def lawyer can argue that the mods to your gun allow you safer utilization in a fight, as long as safeties are left in place & triggers are not unreasonably light. A crisp 4# trigger allows for more precise shooting, especially if a safety is involved, ala 1911, thus safer in a fight. My carry guns usually have stock triggers with some smoothing.
 
#13 ·
Mesa (AZ) PD Officer Brailsford is currently under fire for modifying the inside of thedust cover of his AR-15 to say "You're F****d". I do believe it is being used against him.

I keep everything pretty stock. The only modifications are sights. The only exception is the Apex DCAEK in my M&P45. I really wouldn't call it much of a modification since it is expressly marketed as designed for duty use.
 
#21 ·
Mesa (AZ) PD Officer Brailsford is currently under fire for modifying the inside of thedust cover of his AR-15 to say "You're F****d". I do believe it is being used against him.
I'm by no means a lawyer, but this kind of "modification" is about the only thing I can see that would matter. It's basically painting a picture of the mindset of the shooter. Something like a lighter trigger can't paint you as bloodthirsty lunatic like plain text can. I'm not saying he's a bloodthirsty lunatic (and I'm not saying that he's not), but I can understand how it's viewed by some.
 
#14 ·
This one has been beat to death several times. No one has come up with a court case where a modified, within reason, handgun was legally used and the modifications were an issue. Short of going fully auto, some sights, trigger work, again within reason, no 1/2 lb pull jobs, you'll be ok.
That is simply not true. There are cases where a gun was legally used, ie. there was an acquittal, but modifications were an "issue" that had to be addressed by the defense in court.

There will never be a case for a conviction for modifying a firearm, as it is legal modify a firearm. Modifications can, and have, created complications in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merkavaboy
#16 ·
If you'll note my Scottish friend, I posted "within reason". Bren brought up two cases where triggers had been modified to become " hair triggers ". Bad idea. If I'm wrong in what I posted, it was an honest mistake. BUT, I still have never seen a post of a case of modifications, within reason, that made the verdict guilty. There may be hundreds of them, I've just never seen them on this forum. And besides, the only place in Europe that I would want to visit, is Scotland. First shot.
 
#15 ·
Any good def lawyer can argue that the mods to your gun allow you safer utilization in a fight, as long as safeties are left in place & triggers are not unreasonably light. A crisp 4# trigger allows for more precise shooting, especially if a safety is involved, ala 1911, thus safer in a fight. My carry guns usually have stock triggers with some smoothing.
A lawyer isn't going to make a convincing argument for your examples. A hired expert witness/subject matter expert might make provide an opinion that would support your arguments - of course the prosecution will probably have their expert witness/SME as well.
 
#20 ·
Well yes, i meant legal team. Peope get all wierd about mids on a ccw, but a good shooting is a good shooting. I am sure some turd prosecutor could make something out o the fact you shoot in a combat style competition, but too easily dismissed by your team as just making you a safer/accurate shooter.
 
#19 ·
I've practiced law for 25 years. That doesn't make me the smartest person who ever lived. Far from it. But its my view that gun mods would be of little consequence at trial, and I think this is borne out by the complete paucity of evidence in support of the contrary view.

Now that being said, I will not put one of those "punisher" skull slide plates on the back of my Glock. That would not look good in front of a jury. But most of the purported evils of gun modification are just hypothetical, and without example here in the real world. Just my take on it.
 
#22 ·
You set up an impossibility to support what you want to be true. If the gun was legally used, modifications won't be an issue. That comes up when the use is questionable or negligent.

Cases? Here are a couple I just looked up.




I have posted others when this issue has been raised here, before.

However, by far the majority of trigger modification cases are defendants claiming a murder was an accident, due to a modified trigger.
I don't think these fit the criteria laid out in this thread. Both of these appear to be claimed to be accidental by the accused. I want to see a case were an otherwise lawful use of force was deemed unlawful due to some sort of mod to the firearm. If that exists, I wanna see it. I don't believe it does.
 
#25 ·
Then read my comment - you said, basically, can you show me a case of an unquestionably justified self-defense shooting where gun mods got somebody in trouble. There is no case where "an otherwise lawful use of force was deemed unlawful due to some sort of mod to the firearm" but, more importantly, nobody ever argued that there was.

For that to happen, the modifications would have to be illegal - I can show you a ton of those, but they all got in trouble for making illegal NFA weapons. Making your trigger lighter is not illegal, so if that's the only issue, it's not a problem. You set up a fake straw man to argue against - nobody is claiming you can get in trouble just for the modifications. We have always claimed that where the facts are questionable, you can get in trouble or in more trouble because of the impression the modifications make on a jury, whether it's a self-defense shooting or an accidental shooting.

You seem to be assuming that if you are involved in a shooting you will be clearly right and never have an accident, questionable judgment or circumstances that make it unclear whether you were right. If you think that, you don't know crap about real shootings in the real world and you better start reading up.
 
#26 ·
PEC-Memphis, you are right. I should've worded my response to the OP better. Hey, it was early in the morning. I guess that since I've never modified any firearm, other than adding a scope to a rifle, it's not an issue for me. But as you and Bren, brought up, there have been many cases where it was an issue. My mistake, my apologies. I'm sure that in today's world of everyone is a victim, and with the right attorney, if you, heaven forbid, have to shoot someone, you and your firearm are going to be scrutinized beyond imagination. It would still be interesting to know if anyone has been convicted in a legal self defense shooting, solely from simple firearm modifications. I sure hope not. First shot. By the way, I'd still like to visit Scotland. I'm sure summer would be best.
 
#28 ·
.....It would still be interesting to know if anyone has been convicted in a legal self defense shooting, solely from simple firearm modifications.....
You aren't going to lose solely because of a firearm modification, it fits within the totality of circumstances. At worst, it can be one of the building bricks of the prosecutions' case in the eyes of a/the juror(s), or a prosecutor uses it to complicate a case (that might be weak).

If you make it to court, at best, your legal team needs to be prepared to address the issue of modification - which costs [additional] time/money/anxiety.

Some complicating factors will be out of your control, others are. In the end, it is your decision to [possibly] add complicating factors under your control, or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Misty02
#31 ·
The lawyer who taught the legal portion of my CCW class described it this way. If you are involved in a defensive shooting, you may get sued or otherwise have to defend your actions. In such a case, you want to continue to state that you took the action because you were in fear for your life. Under no circumstances should you boast or brag about 'capping the dude with my Glock' or have 'natural born killer' etched into your weapon.
 
#36 ·
So about 17-18 states require only a majority to rule. Kalif is one. So gross factual wrror, uh no.
State Court Jury Verdicts: Unanimity Not Always Required
In state courts, whether a jury needs to be unanimous depends on the state and the type of trial. For criminal trials, nearly every state requires the jury to produce a unanimous verdict.

For civil trials, almost one-third of states only require a majority for a verdict. Some states require a majority if the money at issue in the trial is below a certain amount, and a unanimous verdict all other times.
Yes, you made a blanket statement - ie. all cases, not correct. Blatantly wrong.

Not even a majority of states or any federal civil case.

Even your rebuttal proves you are wrong.
 
#37 ·
Yes, you made a blanket statement - ie. all cases, not correct. Blatantly wrong.

Not even a majority of states or any federal civil case.

Even your rebuttal proves you are wrong.
In my state, no i sm not wrong, in 16-17 other states, no i am not wrong. Since few of us will study civil case structure in the many states we carry. Probably best to err on the side of caution?
 
#39 ·
So about 17-18 states require only a majority to rule. Kalif is one. So gross factual wrror, uh no.
State Court Jury Verdicts: Unanimity Not Always Required
In state courts, whether a jury needs to be unanimous depends on the state and the type of trial. For criminal trials, nearly every state requires the jury to produce a unanimous verdict.

For civil trials, almost one-third of states only require a majority for a verdict. Some states require a majority if the money at issue in the trial is below a certain amount, and a unanimous verdict all other times.

I wasn't aware of majority verdicts. I always thought that verdicts had to be unanimous.
 
#41 ·
Feel better now PEC.
 
#43 ·
The legal impact of mods to a carry pistol is a recurring theme. Modifying one's CC pistol is not illegal in any US jurisdiction of which i am aware, but that doesn't mean it can't make a difference in defending a shooting case. Just because the modifications are not illegal, doesn't mean that they can't cause some heartburn in terms of jury perception. And if your mods are going to require experts to explain them, they're going to make your defense that much more expensive.

It's still early enough that I'm not really "coffee'd up," so I'm not going to dig into the legal niceties right now, but I am awake enough to dig out an old post of mine in the issue.

Spats McGee said:
Caveat: I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. The comments that follow are not, and should not be construed as legal advice, but are merely commentary.

With that out of the way, at the Moment of Bang, at least two, and possibly more, legal processes are set in motion. First, there is the possible criminal case. Second, one or more possible civil actions. (One by the Bad Guy, his estate, and if you're unlucky enough to hit an innocent bystander, then possibly one the the Innocent Bystander or his or her estate.)

There are several issues to consider when pondering the advisability of gun modifications. The first is the legal impact of said modifications. For example, having a trigger pull lightened could lead to accusations that it was done recklessly, negligently, or to an unreasonably light level. This is not so much of a concern in the case of an SD shooting where the shooter will likely have to admit that he intentionally shot the BG, but does raise concerns in the negligence context. For example, imagine that SD Shooter draws his gun, and BG McBaddy stops in his tracks. Knowing that he might no longer have to shoot BG McB, SD decides to hold off on squeezing the trigger. Through a combination of adrenaline and a lightened trigger, SD accidentally/negligently discharges a round, wounding BG. The argument could then be made that the trigger job was done in a negligent manner, or perhaps that it was negligent of him to carry a firearm that he knew had been modified in such a way. The question to ask, IMHO, is: Does the modification carry a large enough benefit to warrant the additional risk?

The second issue to be considered is one of jury perception. In addition to ay legal arguments that could be made, everyone who carries a firearm should consider what a jury is likely to think about the firearm that is used in a shooting. Is there really any difference between a .223 round fired from an AR and a .223 round fired from a Mini-14 ranch rifle? No. Not to "gun folks." The SD shooter cannot count on the jury being made up of gun folks, though. To many non-gun folks, the gun fired makes a big difference. And you can bet that an anti-gun prosecutor will tell them that they can judge an SD shooter's mindset by the weapon that he carries. If it has a Death's Head carved into the grips, an anti-gun prosecutor will show pictures of it every chance he gets. Again, the question to ask is: Does the modification carry enough benefit to warrant the additional risk?

Sometimes, the answer is yes. Sometimes, it's no. If you decide that the answer is yes, you need to be sure that you can clearly articulate to your lawer exactly what benefits come with the modifications you choose. That way, your lawyer will know exactly what questions to ask if and when you (heaven forbid) ever have to take the stand to defend those modifications.
Original post: http://www.glocktalk.com/threads/le...n-to-a-carry-gun.1499097/page-2#post-20538318
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top