Glock Talk banner

OEM Glock vs. Lone Wolf Timber Wolf vs. the law?

1714 44
I occasionally read that a carry gun should not be customized outside of its OEM condition for CC. Supposedly one that is changed to meet a specific owners preferences could be a legal point of contention if the gun had to be used in a self defense event as far as the legal right to defend is concerned. My question is then how would a specific gun like the Lone Wolf Timber Wolf bought complete from LW, which is completely custom, be looked at in such a circumstance. Would it be considered OEM?
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

· Kool-Aid
Joined
·
449 Posts
That tripe has been repeated so much people are believing it. Merely changing certain elements of a gun are unlikely to come up in an intentional shooting. Certain cosmetic things like "punisher grips" and such could potentially be used to show how you were looking for a fight, tear apart your self defense motive, etc. but this is going to depend on the specifics of any case and could end up being completely irrelevant to your case.

More liability comes into play when it's NOT an intentional shooting, e.g. "it just went off!" or "I didn't mean to hit the pregnant woman standing to the side of the bad guy!" Then any modification you make will likely be scrutinized to see if it contributed... and the OEM will disclaim any warranty/responsibility because it was modified beyond their specs. You'll have to fight a contributory negligence claim, most likely, if they can assert that whatever you changed contributed to the negligent discharge/hit.

I change sights, connectors and trigger springs and can justify that, if needed, by it improving accuracy, control, etc. Ideally, though, if I'm ever in a defensive gun use, there won't be any question that I intentionally shot at, hit, and stopped whatever was threatening me.

Maybe I should go get my gun Cerakoted pink with Hello Kitty just so when a jury sees it they go "awwww..." God forbid that ever actually happens.
 

· Kool-Aid
Joined
·
449 Posts
Your last paragraph is the only one that matters. Everything before that is at best well-intentioned speculation that can't be applied in any specific case because they're all so different.

Ideally, you avoid a DGU through good awareness.

If you get into a DGU, ideally there's no question that you fired intentionally and hit what you fired at.

Past that, anyone can argue anything. Just remember that if the POLICE get in a shooting, they get representation FIRST and make a statement SECOND.

You should too.
 

· Kool-Aid
Joined
·
449 Posts
Thanks for leading off with information that clearly indicates that you have no idea what you are writing about, so that we need read no further.
As always, the blind believers of internet lore make an appearance.

Please provide a case citation where a mechanical change to a gun used in a DGU resulted in a defeated self-defense charge.

Note: Mechanical, not cosmetic.

Additional Reading: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/10/06/legal-brief-carrying-modified-gun/
 

· Kool-Aid
Joined
·
449 Posts
Thanks again for stressing the difference between mechanical and cosmetic, again you don't know what you are writing about.
When you start with such a baseless assumption you undermine the rest of anything else you had to say.

And have yet to provide a citation to a case where this invalidated a self-defense defense or turned a good shoot bad.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
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