[mreed911]

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.

 

[mreed911]

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.

 

[mreed911]

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/

 

[mreed911]

...and had an accidental discharge you would have a more difficult case to make etc.

To be clear - an AD/ND with a modified gun is a completely different beast. Caveat emptor.

 

[mreed911]

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.

 

[mreed911]

Just look to SD cases that were overturned on appeal (where even a laser sight, among other juror perceptions, were an issue)

I'll ask this again. Which cases? Citations, please.

As of now you're still proffering a baseless argument.

 

[mreed911]

Mas Ayoob personally told me that there have been cases where a lighter trigger was used as evidence of an AD/ND by a savvy prosecutor.

AD/ND cases are different from intentional DGU's. That distinction was made earlier by me and others.

 

[mreed911]

Sure that distinction can’t be purposely muddled by an ambitious prosecutor? Intention is a helluva thing to prove.

"I intended to shoot him."