Gun manufacturers mass produce average guns for average shooters. They have features in design and manufacturing that are for marketing—primarily profit oriented. The needs of individuals are secondary to producing a lowest common denominator product to sell to masses who will accept the gun as is.
The fact that many manufacturers offer customized services and upgraded parts is proof that the manufacturer recognizes that their average guns can be improved. So, do you have to use the manufacturers’ upgrades exclusively to avoid legal liability? If you use aftermarket manufacturers products of equal or even better quality to improve a gun why is that a problem? I agree a 2# target trigger on a defensive gun IS likely a liability, but I am talking about reasonable not extreme upgrades.
Now, a mystique has been built up that because a large manufacturer has designed a gun a certain way, that is the only way that gun can be used. This is obviously false. Those who buy into this legal liability hoax are welcome to do so. It is possible for aftermarket folks to build entirely competent and reliable upgrades. Not all are, of course. One has to do some market research and then one’s own testing.
Features of the gun used in the shooting are very rarely the central legal problem in the shooting. It is whether or not the requirements of the criminal laws for a justified shoot have been met. I am not aware of any laws against modifying a gun, other than using a gun or components that are illegal in a state (Mass., CA, NJ, etc.) For instance, using a 17 round mag in a 10 round mag state. Don’t do that.
The first responsibility in a personal fight is to win. Worrying about the legal aftermath is secondary. If a secondary concern diminishes your primary responsibility to win a fight, I believe you have your priorities wrong.
Custom gun manufacturers, who charge a lot more money, build guns to customers’ requirements. These guns typically have much higher quality, more features, and perform better for the individual shooter. Are they an increased liability in criminal court if the “shoot” otherwise meets legal requirements? No. Maybe in civil court if you don’t have competent representation and witnesses, but even there reasonableness is the standard and should be in your favor.
In between these two market areas is where mass manufactured guns with aftermarket accessories can be improved for individual shooters. Some claim there will be legal liability for changing a manufacturer’s design. Maybe. Probably not.
If one can articulate legally why an improvement to a gun makes it more reliable, more accurate, more capable, and therefore a better defensive tool than the average mass manufactured gun, legal liability can go away.
BTW, I’m not talking about adding markings that impute bloodthirst to owners. Such markings do nothing to improve functioning. That can be a problem.
For me, carrying 10+1 rounds in my 9mm Shield is a no brainer aftermarket accessory/upgrade, adding 1/4” in mag length. Of course I must prove to myself the change functions reliably before depending on it. Justifying such a change is easy in court IF ever challenged. Running out of ammo and dying in a fight is not a good thing. Juries are likely to agree.
Does one extra round (or three) guarantee you’ll win a fight, or a better trigger, or a polished feed ramp, or a laser, or sights that are easier to see or use? No. Could one or more of those improvements help you win? Yes. (Documented training is likewise helpful or hurtful, depending on how it is represented.)
Let’s talk about the average gunfight. 3-3-3. I get it. Now, define average. The range of variables could be zero shots fired to 15 shots or more. It could be contact distance or 20 yards. It could be one second or thirty. Can you actually predict the fight you are going to be in will be on the low side of average? Are you willing to bet your life on it? I’m not. I want every stinking little advantage I can provide for myself that fits my carrying, concealing and shooting capabilities. Especially when a few of them are stacked for even greater advantage. When there’s a choice, and there almost always is, I do not choose average.
Each of us makes choices based on his knowledge base. Sometimes, unfortunately, we are swayed by a lack of knowledge or incorrect knowledge. Different attorneys have written extensively about both sides of this issue, and I am not an attorney.
I really can’t say that a person who chooses to carry a bone stock, small caliber, small capacity gun for fighting is wrong. He will most likely never test his choice in a life or death situation to prove one of us right or wrong.
My feeling is that statistics and averages are not provided us to prepare for the most likely, common or easiest challenge. Rather the opposite. Prepare to the extent possible for the worst situation and still be able to handle the average or simpler one. Modifying a gun can contribute to success factors. And, not modifying a gun is no guarantee that a prosecutor or plaintiff’s attorney will still not attack you over some characteristic of even a bone stock weapon.
I don’t intend to sound too closed minded. I am open to other points of view, so let’s discuss . . .
The fact that many manufacturers offer customized services and upgraded parts is proof that the manufacturer recognizes that their average guns can be improved. So, do you have to use the manufacturers’ upgrades exclusively to avoid legal liability? If you use aftermarket manufacturers products of equal or even better quality to improve a gun why is that a problem? I agree a 2# target trigger on a defensive gun IS likely a liability, but I am talking about reasonable not extreme upgrades.
Now, a mystique has been built up that because a large manufacturer has designed a gun a certain way, that is the only way that gun can be used. This is obviously false. Those who buy into this legal liability hoax are welcome to do so. It is possible for aftermarket folks to build entirely competent and reliable upgrades. Not all are, of course. One has to do some market research and then one’s own testing.
Features of the gun used in the shooting are very rarely the central legal problem in the shooting. It is whether or not the requirements of the criminal laws for a justified shoot have been met. I am not aware of any laws against modifying a gun, other than using a gun or components that are illegal in a state (Mass., CA, NJ, etc.) For instance, using a 17 round mag in a 10 round mag state. Don’t do that.
The first responsibility in a personal fight is to win. Worrying about the legal aftermath is secondary. If a secondary concern diminishes your primary responsibility to win a fight, I believe you have your priorities wrong.
Custom gun manufacturers, who charge a lot more money, build guns to customers’ requirements. These guns typically have much higher quality, more features, and perform better for the individual shooter. Are they an increased liability in criminal court if the “shoot” otherwise meets legal requirements? No. Maybe in civil court if you don’t have competent representation and witnesses, but even there reasonableness is the standard and should be in your favor.
In between these two market areas is where mass manufactured guns with aftermarket accessories can be improved for individual shooters. Some claim there will be legal liability for changing a manufacturer’s design. Maybe. Probably not.
If one can articulate legally why an improvement to a gun makes it more reliable, more accurate, more capable, and therefore a better defensive tool than the average mass manufactured gun, legal liability can go away.
BTW, I’m not talking about adding markings that impute bloodthirst to owners. Such markings do nothing to improve functioning. That can be a problem.
For me, carrying 10+1 rounds in my 9mm Shield is a no brainer aftermarket accessory/upgrade, adding 1/4” in mag length. Of course I must prove to myself the change functions reliably before depending on it. Justifying such a change is easy in court IF ever challenged. Running out of ammo and dying in a fight is not a good thing. Juries are likely to agree.
Does one extra round (or three) guarantee you’ll win a fight, or a better trigger, or a polished feed ramp, or a laser, or sights that are easier to see or use? No. Could one or more of those improvements help you win? Yes. (Documented training is likewise helpful or hurtful, depending on how it is represented.)
Let’s talk about the average gunfight. 3-3-3. I get it. Now, define average. The range of variables could be zero shots fired to 15 shots or more. It could be contact distance or 20 yards. It could be one second or thirty. Can you actually predict the fight you are going to be in will be on the low side of average? Are you willing to bet your life on it? I’m not. I want every stinking little advantage I can provide for myself that fits my carrying, concealing and shooting capabilities. Especially when a few of them are stacked for even greater advantage. When there’s a choice, and there almost always is, I do not choose average.
Each of us makes choices based on his knowledge base. Sometimes, unfortunately, we are swayed by a lack of knowledge or incorrect knowledge. Different attorneys have written extensively about both sides of this issue, and I am not an attorney.
I really can’t say that a person who chooses to carry a bone stock, small caliber, small capacity gun for fighting is wrong. He will most likely never test his choice in a life or death situation to prove one of us right or wrong.
My feeling is that statistics and averages are not provided us to prepare for the most likely, common or easiest challenge. Rather the opposite. Prepare to the extent possible for the worst situation and still be able to handle the average or simpler one. Modifying a gun can contribute to success factors. And, not modifying a gun is no guarantee that a prosecutor or plaintiff’s attorney will still not attack you over some characteristic of even a bone stock weapon.
I don’t intend to sound too closed minded. I am open to other points of view, so let’s discuss . . .
