I have read on this forum where folks fear that modifying a weapon that is actually used for defending your life may result in charges brought against you.

I don't know if this could actually happen within reason, I can see how if you bolt a rocket launcher on your shotgun perhaps you would run afoul of the law, but would something as simple as lightening the trigger or improving the sights become fodder for an overzealous attorney?

I doubt it would lead to "charges being brought against you", but a modification could certainly be the target of an attempt by a prosecutor to assassinate your character. Think about it, if I was a over-zealous, anti-gun prosecutor, trying to find a way to make you look negligent or malicious in front of a jury, would it be easier or harder for me to do that if you had (just as an example) pinned down the grip safety on your 1911?

"This man was so cavalier in his attitude towards safety, that he knowingly and purposefully disabled an essential safety device inside of his weapon, all in an attempt to make it easier for him to kill or injure somebody like the victim in this case........"

You mean aside from having the gun fail from a modification?

IANAL. Those who are tell me that if you make the mistake of saying you shot "accidentally" or are in questionable circumstances, you are likely to be put under a microscope and criticized for everything. So yes, there is potential liability in anything unusual you do: modified gun, special ammo, late shot, conflicting story, running your mouth, or ????


It varies widely by individual state laws, and that's why they have lawyers and courts.

__________________
Science plus Art

As the saying goes, "The law may upset reason, but reason may not upset the law." In other words, anything goes in a court room but common sense.

I suppose an overzealous prosecutor, or the plaintiff's attorney in a civil suit, could try to make a case for some things, like using "hot" loads for example, as being overly aggressive...but I can't see how making a modification to a handgun that makes it more reliable would be an issue.

Then again, I am trying to apply common sense...

It really depends on where you live. I'm not aware of a case in Texas where the modification of the weapon was a major issue in the trial.

Your best bet is to consult a local lawyer that is familiar with such issues.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

I wouldnt go as far to alter my bullets to dum dum and rub garlic in them.

Depends upon the modifications and who does them. However, as noted, ANYTHING can become fuel for a courtroom battle-and you're paying not only the legal tab, but possibly the verdict.

Trigger work, by an authorized/trained service person, that keeps the weight of pull within factory specification is defensible. As are better sights and stocks to help the weapon fit your hand (increase your control over the weapon).

Work by other persons or to other specifications puts you at risk. How much risk varies by circumstance and/or where you live.

Your own words, after a shooting, will do you more damage than modifications to your gun before a shooting.

What modifications are necessary to your carry pistol? Is it anything that could be solved by buying a new or better quality pistol?

In a by-the-books justified shooting that is completely black and white, it won't matter what gun or ammo you used or what changes you made to it. Unfortunately, our world and our legal system operate in shades of gray. Any decision you make to alter a carry gun or ammunition should be weighed carefully against the possible repercussions. As other posters have pointed out, prosecutors (civil or criminal) will not hesitate to call attention to any facts they may discover that could be construed to paint you in an unfavorable light.

For me, it's a stock pistol with store-bought PD ammo.

This is a subject that has been discussed may times and the answer is it could. In a SD scenario, after the shooting comes the shooting investigation. The investigation will determine if you were justified in using deadly force or not. The investigators will look at your gun and ask you routine questions about it. After the investigation your case is presented to the Grand Jury for review. The outcome of that will be indictment/no bill. Indictment=go to trial, be acquitted or go to prision. No bill=go home. Whether you are indicted or no billed, tried or acquitted, there will ALWAYS be a civil trial. You can take that to the bank. During this civil trial is where mods to a gun will come into play. Anything you do to a gun that deviates from factory specs will come into question. Things like lighter triggers, polishing/honing of internal parts, removal/modification of factory installed safeties. Even something as mundane as adding night sights, a tactical light or even a magwell will be questioned by the plaintiffs. How do I know these things? I've been there and I'm in the middle of a civil case now regarding my last on-duty shooting. The gun I used was a slightly modified 4006TSW. By slightly modified I mean I added night sights, a light, had the feed ramp and breechface polished and added a lighter hammer spring . All this was done by S&W at my request. Everything I mentioned above has been brought into question by the plaintiff's attorney to make it sound like I did these things because I wanted to kill the deceased when in fact everything I had done was to make the gun more reliable/user friendly. I was questioned about every single thing done to the gun. Here are some of my replies:

Night sights: To ensure I hit what I'm aiming at and not injure or kill an uninvolved person by a poorly placed shot.

Tactical light: So I can identify my target and backstop.

Polishing: To enhance reliability

Lighter hammer spring: Because I didn't like the double action trigger pull.

So, with all that being said modifying your gun MAY be an issue if you're sued. The kicker is this, as long as the mods you make don't void the manufacturers warranty and do not make the gun inherently unsafe you'll be fine.

I have a Streamlight on mine, and I was thinking of putting an Apex trigger in it. I think I could easily defend the Streamlight, but what about trigger mods? Could a better trigger be skewed in such a way as to make me seem like a trigger happy killer? If the weapon is changed from S&W specs, I bet a good lawyer would jump on that to paint an unsavory image of me and my actions.

We know thousands upon thousands of weapons have trigger work done. Are we all at risk if we defend ourselves with these?

And the only correct answer to your question is, "maybe, maybe not". The modification alone is probably not much of a liability on it's own, however, the totality of the circumstances surrounding any shoot will dictate whether or not any single aspect regarding your equipment becomes an issue in the end.

I have seen this question asked over and over. I say phoey.. people respond with conjecture and "I think".. neither of which has any bearing on reality. Until an actual documented case, the answer is I don't know...

But... I will say... .... I have a CCW carry license, that is a fact, I have the right to protect myself with my weapon of choice, that is also a fact. I know of no law that says I cannot make my weapon more functional. As long as I protect myself according to the law.... nor do I know of no law limiting me to any particular ammo. No where does it say I can only injure a perp. to protect myself... thats a fact.. ok, back to Terminator 3....

__________________
Jack C

You can justify most mods, just don't engrave "minority killer" on it.

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

as far as getting more charges, probably not. getting sued however, after the fact. yeah, id watch out.

haha, +1. Post-of-the-Day candidate right there. On that note, you might also want to leave the custom "Punisher" skull grips off your carry 1911.

Whenever someone asks this question I always wonder how they determined that your gun was modified. Or that you might be shooting reloads. I can see that it's not impossible but how likely is it really?

Here in RI that CCW license allows you to carry concealed but says nothing about using !
Dave

About 100% in a civil suit, with expert examination of the gun and ballistic testing of the ammo.

The OSBI also investigates every shooting in OK, and has an expert lab available to examine to any extent deemed relevant in the particular case. They even examine accidental shootings including to determine if the gun was modified and/or faulty.

There is a case ongoing now that arose because because of conflicting stories and a camera tape, and has grown into a full criminal case with full forensics testing. They have gone to the extent of trying to determine exactly which shot was fatal and when death occurred, from which gun. A murder charge has been filed.

In another case of a home invasion, the investigation was short and simple, shooting justified, closed.

__________________
Science plus Art

boingboing's response(post #10) is highly instructive and probably the one you'll most want to remember, since he has actually experienced these matters. It seems to me that anything I do to my SD gun to improve the odds of successfully protecting myself and my own from harm is not only legitimate, but the only reasonable thing to do. As others here have indicated, however, one's opponent in the courtroom isn't trying to be reasonable, but to win. What to do? All of us must decide for ourselves, I guess.

Andy

The problem becomes one where what you believe is the "reasonable thing to do", a court or a jury of your peers might find it to be negligent or reckless. Take my example of pinning the grip safety on a 1911; yes, it could certainly enhance the reliability of the gun and probably allow you to fire it even with a compromised grip, but it could also be a modification that is used to paint you in a negligent light. After all, what kind of "reckless, maniacal killer" would go so far as to knowingly and purposefully make his gun "less safe"?

My advice to my students is to change grips and sights to their liking, add a laser or light if they must, and feel free to add "skateboard tape" where appropriate. But if they just can't get along with the safety and firing systems on their gun, get rid of it and buy a gun that they CAN get along with. There are enough options out there that all of us should be able to find a factory configuration that works very well for us.

All the modifications I've made to my carry guns were made to enhance my safety, and that of innocent bystanders, especially children. It's all for the children...

Modify and don't tell.
Priority #1 - protect your life and your family.
Everything else is less important.

Well Boys,
Right there ya go.

I wouldn't worry too much about mods to your carrry gun.

In civil court the 'other side' gonna bring up and question every thing from your brand of toothpaste to your hemorrhoid ointment.

They'll attack your training...

Do you train or practice regularly?
Do you shoot/train in low light condition or inclement weather?
Are you a graduate of a shooting school, etc...?

You see where this is going.

The opposition will try to paint the defendant as a high speed, low drag fully tuned highly trained 24/7 all weather killing machine.

Or Not...

Su Amigo,
Dave

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

The one thing to remember about that jury is that the other side is going to do their best to make sure there's absolutely no firearms owners/NRA members on the jury. So you're facing a group whose knowledge of firearms comes from the entertainment media.

It may be possible to educate those folks, but avoiding issues in the first place is both easier and cheaper. Although, it may require you to work harder in training to master the weapon instead of getting your weapon altered inside or outside of factory specifications.

As a couple of people have said, there's a lot of choices out there. You may be able to find something box stock that works just fine. My current carry is the only box stock firearm of any type that I own. It didn't need any mods.

Excellent points.....

I would think a good lawyer (ha ha ha, that's like military intelligence! ) would even go so far as to see what you write on blogs....

All your dirty laundry will be exposed.... What about if I have the M&P sent back to S&W to have the trigger worked on? Maybe the pro trigger installed?

If you must, who better than the factory? Previous ceveats apply.

Okay, I'm interested in hearing more details about this. What kind of protocol do they use to examine the gun? Are you telling me they bench test every spring, and do dimensional analysis of the engagement surfaces of the moving parts? What process does a civil complainant actually have to go through to get possesion of the gun for testing? I shot my gun empty, where are they getting ammo to test? If there's any links with gory details about these scenarios I'd love to dig through them.

Well,
My point is just that.

Yes, you will be under the microscope with any and all loose threads picked, tugged and pulled at to the 9th degree.

I was on the stand to testify at trial on behalf of the State in a homicide.
That defense attn'y chewed on me like a bulldog, you'd thought I was the one that shot the victims.

The thing to remember is, "You can't stop a man that's in the right, that keeps on a comin'."

Go for the 'No Bill' from the grand jury.


I just don't worry about it...I guess.

Su Amigo,
Dave

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Yeah, one could argue that a lighter trigger pull made them more accurate and thus, hopefully, prevent an innocent bystander from being shot while dealing with the bad guy.

A court order (IIRC, subpoena duces tecum) can be obtained for surrender of the weapon. Depending upon the case, the state may have done all their work for them, they just have to subpoena the records/experts. They may send the weapon to an authorized service center, independent lab or the manufacturer to determine if it was altered from factory specification. Don't worry about the details of the process, simply know that it can be done and has been done if someone has the ambition/greed/money/political will.

Guys, about 60 miles up the road from me, a gent used a licensed automatic weapon in a self defense shooting. Because a prosecutor saw opportunity/exercised discretion, the gent dropped about $100,000 on a defense because of the nature of the weapon employed. There's a lesson here.

The reason I'm worried about the process is that your scary answer has a lot of can be, may have, may send, etc. It sounds great in theory but I'd like to see some examples that have occurred in practice. It sure sounds a lot harder to execute than to imagine.

It only has to happen to you once before the chances of it happening become 100% in your eyes.

I think the main "theme" most of us have been parroting throughout this thread is that it is always prudent to REDUCE YOUR LIABILITY WHERE YOU CAN. You have complete and total control over whether or not you make various modifications to your carry gun. The same thing applies with choosing your carry ammunition. Those two things should NEVER have the possibility of being a legal liability to you (whether rightly or wrongly), if you simply exercise good judgment in your decision making process regarding both.

In the end, there are already plenty of potential liabilities that could come up in a self-defense shooting; ones that you will have no control over and that could cause you plenty of legal headaches, that there is no need to add completely avoidable liabilities on top of them.

CSHOFF and boingboing nailed it! If you're not a gunsmith, the anti-gunners will chew you up. The bleeding heart jurors will find you negligent and evil. If you leave the weapon in factory condition, you'll be using the same gun as a law officer would/could carry, which would be a "good" gun. You might also have the opportunity to have the manufacturer testify FOR you, instead of against. Aside from cosmetics and qualified gunsmith work, I'd leave it alone.

__________________
Term limits!

Well here we are more than 30 posts in and nobody has mentioned Massad Ayoob, so I guess I will. He's a member here so maybe he'll chime in. He has written about this at length in various gun magazines. One case had a guy in a shooting that was justified, but they found,in his car, away from the shooting scene, a Browning Hi-Power with the mag disconnect safety de-activated. They made a huge deal about it. I don't remember if he was convicted of a crime or found a fault in a lawsuit, but that one thing cost him thousands of dollars to make go away. Mas also has talked about cutting trigger return springs on revolvers and pinning grip safeties. There is nothing wrong with these actions, but to a shark lawyer it's blood in the water, and the blood may be yours. The question to ask yourself is, is it worth the trouble, even though it may be totally legal?
I've read numerous articles Mas has written and have learned from all of them. I also had the honor of attending one of his classes (MAG20) about a year ago where he discussed this at length. It's a real concern if you rely on a gun for self-defense.

Good points all of you!!

Now, will this thinking extend to your ammunition? The Talon Body Shredders or Fast Expanding Belly Buster round? Using a ball round that may go through someone and injure a bystander? My Lord, we can worry this to death, but lawyers can take anything and blow it out of proportion.

If the OP had done a search, this question has been beaten beyond death on virtually all forums of this type, including this one. I expect Mas is sick of the question. You can lead a horse to water, etc.

Now then, while I only have one of the specific cases Mas discussed, noted below, in my mental data banks, I do have another cautionary tale, available online.

Go to the Philadelphia Inquirer website and search <Gerald Ung>. Go back to the original article in very early 2010 and read forward. Briefly, Mr. Ung shot one of multiple attackers in early 2010 and was tried for attempted murder, being acquitted on 16 February 2011. The version of the incident put forth by the alleged "victim" and his buds was significantly different from what could be observed on a FoxNews street cam that filmed the attack and was probably seen by everyone in Philly (and was used by the defense). Despite this, the prosecution moved forward. The media repeatedly noted the political connections of the family of the "alleged victim".

Now, if a prosecutor is willing to go forward with a case where the "victim" is obviously factually challenged, do you think an attorney is going to pass up an actual issue, regardless of how flimsy? [Like the reduced power trigger return spring that was alleged to make the weapon "more deadly"? Actual case, assertation overcome by expert testimony. More important, the jury bought the experts testimony. Note: the information was elicited from the prosecutions expert!] Mr. Ung prevailed, deservedly so, but in the process lost about a year of his life and has not (possibly will not) completed law school.

Simply put, there are some modifications that potentially give other people access to your lifesavings and posessions-like reducing trigger pull weights below factory specification, removing safety devices and letting uncertified persons modify your weapons . Do what you want, just don't be surprised at what may happen.

It's largely a function of where you are.

In Ohio, even in liberal urban areas, so long as the modification didn't cause or appear to cause an accidental discharge, the odds of you being indicted in an otherwise good shoot because you have an extended safety or a [safe] trigger job is infinitesimal.

Here, persecuting an obvious crime victim is a big loser politically.

As far as civil liability goes, if it's a good shoot, your assailant or his survivors can go pound sand. We have immunity from civil action by the aggressor in a violent crime. Go ahead and sue. You can't collect anything. I'm betting that most home invaders don't have the wherewithal to bankroll an utterly futile lawsuit. And I think you'll search a LONG time for a personal injury lawyer who'll take a STATUTORILY unwinnable case on contingency.

Ha, ha. Very funny. Next time you need an attorney, be sure you pass that along to him/her. I'm sure he'll appreciate it. No, not all your dirty laundry will be exposed. Those who do not know or understand the rules of evidence make these comments regularly on the interweb, and with few exceptions, they are wrong. The first rule of admissibility is that evidence must be relevant. Most of the BS that concerns and agitates non-lawyers on the net is unequivocally irrelevant, and therefore inadmissible.

The grand jury system is scary, and anyone who is not afraid of it is either uneducated about it, or is a fool. However, despite the fact that one can indict a ham sandwich, facts and testimony are important. I know people who were indicted because the police lied, and the DA lied or withheld evidence, and I know people who should have been indicted, and were not. Grand jury proceedings are confidential, after all.

In the context of the original question, most of the concerns about cross examination are misplaced, because they are irrelevant. Most of the factual issues are also irrelevant and inadmissible. Nonetheless, anyone who carries a modified gun needs to be able to articulate the methods and the reasons for the mods, in clear language, in a courtroom, so a grand or petit jury will understand and discount them.

I'm no expert but if I am huddled in the bedroom closet with my family during a home invasion wait for the police to arrive and the invaders come in to the closet and I shout leave my family alone (while the 911 operator is recording) I would say I was taking a defensive posture and the shooting would be justified. I hope I am never in a situation where I would have to make the decision to pull the trigger, but I will defend my family.

This threads just slay me....
IN MY OPINION...deadly force is authorized or not....
IF you authorized to use deadly force, then what difference does it make what you use??? Machine gun, pinned grip safety, improved sights, handloaded ammo, boiling oil, car bumper, boarding axe, length of rope, or candlestick in the library.
We have beat liability into every conversation about deadly force....instead of spending time making sure civilians and peace officers understand that YES, you can use deadly force if you follow the law.
If you are authorized to pull the trigger, then pull it. Or use your boarding axe....or your modified rail gun with the Kung Fu grip....cause it really JUST doesn't matter

Who makes the "Kung Fu grip" sounds like something I need. LOL

Back in college my roommate employed his johnson to fend off a female intruder and he got arrested for it, which was wrong because we had a restraining order against her and her grandchildren.

__________________
Morality >religion

his johnson?? or his Johnson machine gun??

In a perfect world, where the evidence and circumstances surrounding every defensive shooting were perfectly black and white, and where every prosecutor believed in your 2nd Amendment rights as strongly as you do, and where civil suits were the exception rather than the rule, you would have a valid point. The truth is, even if you do everything right and every step you take is completely by the book, there are no guarantees that you won't end up in front of a judge or jury trying to defend yourself from some bogus nonsense.

True, and if you want to protect yourself from litigation then you should disconnect the electricity to your house, stop driving, never own a swimming pool, boat, or set of stairs....or hire an employee, or do anything else in this world.....
On the other hand you can learn the laws in your jurisdiction about self defense and deadly force, avoid trouble, and go about your daily life....

We have hashed this ground before....but the cases where litigation was successful against an HONEST self defense shooting over the ammo or the weapon are statistically insignificant, if they truly exist at all.....insignificant enough for it to be of no concern in the big picture of life....

There is NOTHING anyone can do to avoid "bogus nonsense" .....worrying about it is futile and time consuming....worry about something more important than the trigger spring in your Glock

Except we have contingency plans in place for those occasions. We have home owners insurance, car insurance, and boat insurance in addition to all of the smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, and life jackets. We obey the rules of the road as best we can, but we take precautions to cover our liabilities because we realize that anything can happen, despite our best efforts to make sure it doesn't.

I'd guess that most of the people who have replied to this thread have already done just that.

I don't know about you, but if I have to pay my attorney several thousand dollars to defend me, even if the case is clear-cut and completely defensible, it is VERY significant to me. Most of us simply don't have that kind of disposable cash reserve on hand. I'd much rather take precautions to limit my liability BEFORE I have to spend that money, especially when it is SO EASY to do so.

The same could be said for not "tinkering" with that spring in the first place. There are plenty of other things we can do that will be a much greater asset to us in a lethal force encounter than a "lighter trigger" or a "pinned safety". It never ceases to amaze me to see people try to use "hardware" as a way to overcome their "software" deficiencies. A properly trained person with a bone-stock handgun is always going to have the advantage over the poorly trained person with the souped-up master blaster.

Man, does it suck to live the life you advocate? Boring and paranoid is not for me. Think I'll go handload some self-defense ammo and tinker with my blaster (it's not master level yet). Who knows, I might even change the grips and if I should really get a wild hair I could pop in a magazine that holds 2 rounds more than the bone-stock mag the factory supplied new. Now I'm spinninmg out of control, trying.....to.....resist........the.......temptation.........of a .....hivis......front...sight......must.......be...strong.....old...chum.

__________________
Morality >religion

The life I advocate? I'm not advocating anything more than common sense. If you prefer to live without fire extinguishers, seat belts, air bags, smoke alarms, and insurance, then go right on ahead. In addition, if you feel you must try to use hardware modifications to make up for software deficiencies, then more power to you. Just keep in mind that you are only fooling yourself and nobody else.

Well said.