So i was talking to a friend and he told me that adding aftermarket parts to a concealed carry gun would get you in trouble if you ever had to use it, because the defense would say that you made your gun into an easier killing machine.


Wouldn't be fine if it was installed by a gunsmith?

One of my M&P 9mm has a dcaek https://apextactical.com/store/produ...php?pid35.html kit on it.
I usually carry it during the winter months.


Just wondering what your guys opinions are?

Yes, No, Doesn't matter. This topic gets brought up every month and everyone trots out their canned responses. I'm in the "Doesn't matter" group.

__________________
Minimize the variables

I posted this on a limited access forum in response to a similar question. Since it is my writing, I doubt that there are any issues with copying it here. If there are, I'll take my moderator hate mail with a ... grimace?

The question was slightly different so the writing is slightly off, but I am too lazy to make the changes I would have to make ...

Quote:
Not to slam on anyone, but we need to get some fundamentals out there. I will be pretty general, in part because some of these issues are not where I live.

First: case law. This means, as a general rule, published cases coming from an appellate court; that is, a court at least one step above the trial court level. The details of what is an appellate court, and what constitutes a published opinion, may vary a bit from state to state. The titles of different levels of court may also vary from state to state. At least some opinions in Federal trial courts are published. Popow v. Margate, cited by many with regard to firearms training, is a trial court opinion. I am going to generally rely on Washington practice, since I am most familiar with it.

Example: Here, unpublished opinions generally are just addressing something that is not real novel, and thus the court only files it for the public record after deciding how established rules of law apply to the issues of the case. There are times when the nerds parties in the case or someone who might have similar issues, like our prosecutor's association, will ask the court to publish if there is a belief that the opinion is more important than the Court perceives. That arcana of this is beyond our scope here. Under our rules, citing to an unpublished opinion in a brief is a violation of various court rules and can result in some form of sanction.
In general, then trial court decisions and outcomes are of no precedential value. They are often too fact specific, and do not generally explain the legal standard. Citing a bad/stupid outcome in a specific case may have modest educational value in some settings, but may also be more of a scare tactic. I've had people try that with me. I may have taken that opportunity to be a sarcastic prick in a reply brief.

Second: one has to recall the differences between civil and criminal cases, which also includes federal (civil rights), another being somewhat unto itself. In a criminal case, the government has to prove BRD that the defendant acted in a manner that violates the relevant criminal standard. Statutes and their meaning can vary a good bit from state to state, and what has meaning in state A might be a shrug and a DILLIGAF in state B. In the civil setting, the BoP is usually preponderance of the evidence (just over half, basically), and the issue (crudely) is whether the defendant violated a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. That can change the dynamics of a trial and its outcome quite a bit. There is also a bigger risk of sympathy driven verdicts in a civil case. Looking into the conduct of a jury generally is not allowed, especially with regard to its decision making process, so it can be hard to have good information on what drove the outcome. (There are exceptions, but somewhat out of my experience and BORING.)

Third: Sometimes the facts and legal basis of a decision are not really as reported. My gut feeling is that this is not a result of dishonesty, but more like the telephone game we have all played. By the time the information has been through enough people, the facts have been distorted enough that going back to the record and reading it will make you think that two different events are being discussed. I encountered that in an article in (a cop rag) a good twenty years ago - the statement of the law asserted by the author (not a lawyer, a retired Lt.) was simply not consistent with anything I knew. I actually contacted the trial counsel because it was so asinine, and have a letter describing what the real facts were, which showed that the rule of law asserted was impossible.

Fourth: Context is important. In the late 70s to late 90s, we had a LOT more hostility to use of force, especially by private citizens, and those advocating the position about "no mods" were often working in areas of the US that are hostile to us anyway. The knowledge we have of psychomotor skills, the dynamics of violent encounters, etc, has changed a lot. (Ask Pat how much he has changed his views and teaching since the mid 80s - I bet there are topics and TTPs which have radically evolved.)

Fifth: the skills of lawyers litigating such cases are good in some parts of the law and trial practice, and SUCK in some others. I am regularly encountering lawyers on both sides of these issues who don't know what they don't know. Many have no idea what expert knowledge is out there, and what the knowledge looks like. This is a really arcane area, as far as I can tell, and even good prosecutors and defense attorneys often don't have the knowledge they need or even know where to get it. I have met some (very damned few) civil attorneys who are really good at some narrow area, like medical malpractice. They have to have a level of knowledge that resembles that of a surgeon to even have a clue about how to deal with experts and even understand what they are saying. That does not mean that they have a prayer of even starting to understand any other area. That does not even allow for the low skill levels of others. A garden variety civil tort case was tried in my prior county last year, and the skills were so low compared to the criminal setting that one of the court interpreters asked me if the rules of evidence applied or were the same! While whining to an appellate judge friend about the low quality of appellate defense briefs (I mean, embarrassingly bad) a few years ago, he told me to be glad I did not have to read the civil stuff, because most of it was awful.
One can be a hell of a good criminal defense attorney (and I have had trials with some I respect) but not have a clue about the use of force issues in a case. I tried (and won, and was upheld on appeal) such a case a couple years ago - the defense argument was not bad, other than the defense did not know enough about LE force to understand why the cops were right and his client could not do what he did.
My co-author has done a lot of work in teaching and being an expert witness, and he is regularly appalled at the low quality of the knowledge and skill of attorneys on both sides. We speak weekly sometimes while he is picking my brain about the skills of the people taking his deposition. It's amazing how little attorneys know about using expert witnesses. I was "lucky" enough to do just over 3 years of child protective cases, and get exposed to using medical experts in abuse cases. It taught me a lot, both in specifics of the field, and in general use of experts. That helped me pull a case out of the ******* last year - had a great expert witness, and one whose skill set was directly on point to the case. She's the head of the SCAN (suspected child abuse and neglect) unit in a major teaching hospital, and been doing that kind of work for almost her entire professional life (25+ years). (And she was part of the victim's care team, took photos on admission, etc.) She even told me my view of how to use her knowledge helped her do better in the future in how she prepped for court. The "expert" proposed by the defense was not appropriate - he is trained as a forensic pathologist, and that's not on point to opining on the immersion burns on a living 22 month old. (Yeah. I wanted to do very bad things to the defendant. Most of my colleagues would not look at the photos. It was bad.) If I did not know enough to know the difference in skill sets, I would have had a hell of a mess. I did a few classes with Pat because I sucked with an AR. I still do, but not near as much, and not near as much as I would have had I relied only on the department. In addition, exposure to the skillsets and people who have a clue helps me as a litigator/legal advisor, and with our expert witnessing. I will continue to do classes as I can, with Pat and others, for the same reasons.

Sixth: Rules of evidence issues. Look back at a string in which I pointed out (based on an initial education from Nyeti, which really opened my eyes) that in a typical shooting case, the firearm itself is not evidence. This is based on ER 401-403 (roughly). ER 404b prohibits generally evidence of other acts to show a person acted consistently with those. "It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." The problem presented, as I see it, is that counsel prosecuting a criminal case or plaintiff's civil counsel are going to take the position that the mods are evidence of preparation, and defense counsel are not well enough prepared to counter such an argument. The argument should be excluded based on expert knowledge of the purpose of the modifications. Your goal is to perform better with your equipment under (poor) circumstances when performance matters. Better sights? Damned right. I'm old - I was always blind, but now I have old guy eyes, too. Smoother trigger? Same - you don't want to yank the shot and hit Grandma down the road. Etc. A 2.5 pound bullseye trigger on your duty 1911? Ruh-roh, Raggie. One needs to give sound analysis to their decisions, and be prepared to explain the mods in a logical coherent manner to people who don't know what they don't know and hate you anyway.

The area and issues are complex and nuanced. Simple answers only outline the place and may give unsound outcomes. Hope this helps.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

I voted 'No', but only because I'm satisfied with the Factory triggers and sights of my carry pistols. If I wasn't satisfied with them, I wouldn't have bought the pistols.

Depends. I voted yes but I think any aftermarket part should be carefully considered.

Night sights, ambi-safeties, aftermarket grips, etc.....NO, it does not matter though there is plenty of internet hype & paranoia to the contrary.

Show me ten (or even fewer) documented defensive shooting cases whereas a jury found someone gulity for no other reason than a "modified" firearm.

I voted yes as you didn't offer the option of "users discretion"
Add night sights .. crimson trace grips, a tac light .... your running aftermarket parts.
in a case gone totally stupid .. it may make some difference, but I seriously doubt it.
the AR type rifle is a big player in home defense, and hard to imagine one not loaded with aftermarket parts nowadays

__________________
it just needs more voltage

As long as the parts are lawful, (some types of silencers are not) and as long as the finished alteration is lawful (cutting a shotgun barrel too short) then they make no difference.

Some of my carry guns have aftermarket parts and some are factory stock. I change the things that I need to, and leave the things I don't. I had a Glock 23c that had a set of aftermarket springs trigger bar in it to tune the trigger. I carried it everyday for about 18 months before trading it for a Model 19 in 2 1/2" that I now carry quite often that is factory stock (except Pachmayr grips). Depends on the gun and my needs.

IN GENERAL I like to keep all my things "Factory" set up. That includes my cars and trucks, motorcycles, watches, and yes guns too.

That said, IF I AM FORCED to but a product that is generally a good one but has ONE weak link, I can make a case for replacing that part with a superior one that is aftermarket.

EXAMPLE: My H-D Motorcycle had a weak compensator sprocket and a Auto Chain Adjuster that only went one way - tighter. I replaced both and now have a much better riding and running Bike. The improvement is so great I applaud the after market Co. that makes the parts and I have no problem with that.

In the case of a gun, MOST times the Factory parts are preferred, but once in a while (especially on the newer models) aftermarket suppliers have done what the Factory SHOULD HAVE done and their parts are superior to the original ones - IMHO of course.

Chief38