testtest

Attorney on gun modifications

Old_Me

Old_Me

Ronin
there was a thread a few weeks ago about should someone modify his gun.

there was "some debate" on whether or not it is legal, or "what will the prosecutor do" to the gun owner in a shooting event.

for a CCW gun, it was always told to me, "NEVER modify your carry weapon"

here is the interview with an attorney, with the USCCA

 
Hah! I thought this might be another questionable Colion Noir video. I remember Tom from my time as a prosecutor in Milwaukee. Good guy and good advice. One thing to remember: always look at state laws and case law to be familiar with the local nuances.
 
Last edited:
My personal decision Is that I want any advantage available over a BG. If I need that gun, I need it to work for me to get every round on target. I am responsible for every round, better sights, better grip, better trigger can give you that. Now I am also not talking about hair triggers, I am talking about good triggers.

The same arguments against modifying can also be made about training. A lawyer can accuse you of trying to make yourself more dangerous. In all that training and shooting competitions how much did you focus on not shooting, and deescalating situations. You trained to kill, did you train to save lives (ie did you take medic classes like Tourniquet classes)? And if you took those classes did you try to save the BG? Basically making yourself better can be the same as making your gun better.
 
Last edited:
Bassbob said:
I really couldn't sit through the whole interview. The fact that you have attorneys for a CC insurance company telling you this stuff is more than a little suspect, no ?
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. USCCA makes money on gun owners who fear being sued. While I have no reason to doubt that USCCA's attorneys are all ethical professionals, they are not unbiased. Absolutely all generic legal advice you obtain from online videos/podcasts/forums should be viewed for entertainment purposes only (including this post).

I worked my way through law school as a police officer and have been practicing law since 2013. I am not a specialist in Firearms Law and Criminal Law is only part of my practice. That being said, in almost 17 years as a LEO and 8 years as an attorney I have never seen a legal gun modification used as factor for determining the legality of a shooting. There was one case where AZ attorneys unsuccessfully tried to prosecute a police officer for murder, in part because he modified his rifle's dust cover to say, "You're F***ed". Needless to say, it didn't work.

There will always be serious civil liability concerns for anyone involved in a negligent discharge who has modified their weapon by removing or deactivating a safety feature. There will always be possible criminal implications any time someone modifies a firearm in an illegal manner. The possible criminal implications of legal modifications are harder to determine.

Most criminal offenses are prosecuted in County Courts, and specific details are rarely published. I've been asking attorneys for years to please forward me any specific case information for criminal prosecutions involving legal gun modifications or customizations. I've gotten a few, "I think a guy I went to law school with had something like that a few years back" responses, but never any actual case citations.

You're best bet for specific legal advice, about any subject, is to hire a licensed attorney in your state. You should never rely on generic online advice from any attorney who does not represent your specific interests (even me).
 
wmg1299 said:
My thoughts exactly. USCCA makes money on gun owners who fear being sued. While I have no reason to doubt that USCCA's attorneys are all ethical professionals, they are not unbiased. Absolutely all generic legal advice you obtain from online videos/podcasts/forums should be viewed for entertainment purposes only (including this post).

I worked my way through law school as a police officer and have been practicing law since 2013. I am not a specialist in Firearms Law and Criminal Law is only part of my practice. That being said, in almost 17 years as a LEO and 8 years as an attorney I have never seen a legal gun modification used as factor for determining the legality of a shooting. There was one case where AZ attorneys unsuccessfully tried to prosecute a police officer for murder, in part because he modified his rifle's dust cover to say, "You're F***ed". Needless to say, it didn't work.

There will always be serious civil liability concerns for anyone involved in a negligent discharge who has modified their weapon by removing or deactivating a safety feature. There will always be possible criminal implications any time someone modifies a firearm in an illegal manner. The possible criminal implications of legal modifications are harder to determine.

Most criminal offenses are prosecuted in County Courts, and specific details are rarely published. I've been asking attorneys for years to please forward me any specific case information for criminal prosecutions involving legal gun modifications or customizations. I've gotten a few, "I think a guy I went to law school with had something like that a few years back" responses, but never any actual case citations.

You're best bet for specific legal advice, about any subject, is to hire a licensed attorney in your state. You should never rely on generic online advice from any attorney who does not represent your specific interests (even me).
Click to expand...
I’ve asked here and elsewhere every time one of these threads come up for just one example and the only one I’ve ever gotten was that one about the cop. There was a thread here a while back about an article Ayood wrote for the SA debrief in which he repeated those claims about modifying your trigger etc. I kinda felt ostracized for disagreeing with him and asking for just one case where it happened. “ Don’t you know who he is? How dare you assume you know more than him”. I mean no one actually said that but I felt the implications.
Whatever, I have my own attorney and he was a prosecutor for 20 years before he switched sides. He’s a effin pitbull man. And I trust him completely. If the gun isn’t illegal and it’s a justified shooting, I got nothing to worry about around here.
 
Bassbob said:
I really couldn't sit through the whole interview. The fact that you have attorneys for a CC insurance company telling you this stuff is more than a little suspect, no ?
Click to expand...
what is needed to be ingrained into the heads of many here is that, some of us do not have a multi-million dollar savings account or high dollar pension.

some of us, depend on our meager SS and much smaller pensions.

as a result, to "protect" ourselves, we HAVE to have CCW insurance, where as in the membership to USCCA, they cover us for legal fee's, and any payouts.

so if "they say" "DON'T modify your gun", then we should adhere to that advice.

we carry insurance for our homes, cars and life, which is why some of us carry insurance for CCW.

if my home owners insurance says to me (and they have), that i NEED to make a certain repair, or lose my coverage?

you had better believe, I WILL ADHERE to that advice.

this is why i was told to NEVER modify a CCW gun, and i say the same to others when asked.

there is NO telling the (legal) trickery that can be used by the DA's office, or the plaintiff's lawyer in court.

why ask or look for trouble from a factory produced weapon.????
 
My attorney is a gun guy, gave the same advice…I listen to it. Other than grips or sights, my defensive guns are factory.

It’s not so much about not being able to shoot down the argument in court, as much as making your attorney’s job easier…and that tends to mean keeping it cheaper for you. If they need to bring in an expert witness to shoot down the prosecution’s argument, it’s gonna be thousands, at the minimum.

If I need to modify a gun so it works better…I’ll find a gun that works better for me without modifying. Plenty of choices.
 
There is one other point I’d like to bring up:
Many of us, when we take out an insurance policy, fail to read it. What are the Exclusions? I don’t know if USCCA has any or if any others do, or if it’s an industry standard in that line of insurance… or if any of them are contemplating excluding or limiting their ‘exposure’ (an insurance term for financial liability) in cases where mods are found.
Just something to think about….
 
xdman said:
A lawyer can accuse you of trying to make yourself more dangerous.
Click to expand...
By getting a CC permit and a gun, I already took that action to be "more dangerous"...

The question that is asked is "what a reasonable and prudent person would do?".
My answer would be:
"Because I am responsible for every round I shoot, I have trained and have took any measures I could, to increase my chances that, in case of imminent danger, I will hit only the threat and nothing else around it".

This includes a better trigger system because, in my personal testing, I found out that I was hitting the threat target more reliable than with factory one.
This also includes laser or optical sight because I could not see well the iron sights without corrective reading glasses.

Hopefully I will never have to use those words, but life can be unexpected.
HansGruber said:
Other than grips or sights, my defensive guns are factory.
Click to expand...
Sights? Training? Based on his interpretation, you are already making yourself "more dangerous" than stock. I can't see what a slightly lighter trigger pull would add to that. The shooting will be either justified or not.
 
Last edited:
My guns are stock. Not because I’m afraid of the bogeyman. Just because they work very well for me that way. Or like Hans said, I’d get different ones.
Im also not berating anyone for getting carry insurance. You do you. Just remember it’s still an insurance company. And pretending they aren’t in it to make money or that they have your best interests at heart is naive.
 
Bassbob said:
Just because they work very well for me that way. Or like Hans said, I’d get different ones.
Click to expand...
If I could afford to keep buying guns until I find the perfect one I would.
For example I like my Hellcat. It would work maybe OK as stock for some. But the groupings that I get with it like that were too wide for me. My trigger feel was gritty and uneven.

I like better the P365XL groupings. Metallic straight trigger, great feel. But then that's a longer barrel that doesn't fit as well in my concealment. Also the safeties are, in my personal opinion, not the same level as in the Hellcat, making me un-easy to point it to my hip (while driving or sitting). So that's my in-house gun.
 
SoNic said:
By getting a CC permit and a gun, I already took that action to be "more dangerous"...

The question that is asked is "what a reasonable and prudent person would do?".
My answer would be:
"Because I am responsible for every round I shoot, I have trained and have took any measures I could, to increase my chances that, in case of imminent danger, I will hit only the threat and nothing else around it".

This includes a better trigger system because, in my personal testing, I found out that I was hitting the threat target more reliable than with factory one.
This also includes laser or optical sight because I could not see well the iron sights without corrective reading glasses.

Hopefully I will never have to use those words, but life can be unexpected.

Sights? Training? Based on his interpretation, you are already making yourself "more dangerous" than stock. I can't see what a slightly lighter trigger pull would add to that. The shooting will be either justified or not.
Click to expand...
The “training” argument is spurious, at best…unless you’ve taken a class titled “how to be a death ninja” or similar.

As for sights, etc…well, according to my attorney, those are kosher.

I’ll take his advice over yours any day.
 
It's the prosecution's job to try to make their case. Anything can and will be used against you.

It's your defense attorney's job to make your case.

To-wit, George Zimmerman's (lack of) MMA proficiency (and the fact that he sought training) was brought up by both sides in his trial.
 
HansGruber said:
I’ll take his advice over yours any day.
Click to expand...
Giving advice? Not my intention, I was just commenting, thinking out loud, talking at a beer.
I am sure that in this thread anyone will do what they think is best for them and that's that.

Heck, afaik a layer might even tell you that the best way to stay out of jail is to get shot, die, and get buried. Technically he would be right.
 
SoNic said:
Heck, afaik a layer might even tell you that the best way to stay out of jail is to get shot, die, and get buried. Technically he would be right.
Click to expand...

I'm laughing at this, but it's one of those laughs where it's the only thing one can do, as they're facing the absurd. And brother, is reality absurd.

Towards "bad outcomes," the idea that a bad result could stem from what should be legal -not only morally/ethially righteous- lethal-force self-defense, I submit the following interview on Spreaker (free), where Varg Freeborn chats with someone who "won" both his defensive-shooting encounter as well as the legal fallout that follows:

www.spreaker.com

Be the Wolf : Episode 11 A Lethal Force Story

Have you ever heard a podcast with two guys discussing how they both had lethal force encounters and endured the subsequent legal and personal aftermath of it? Well, you're about to. Max joins me to talk about his fatal shooting and resulting trials, and we share some viewpoints on the topics.
www.spreaker.com www.spreaker.com

At the ~38 minute time-point, Varg speaks of "the horsepower" of having money to push through the legal system.

Don't believe these two guys (their stories have been vetted by multiple people in the industry, BTW)? I will point to XDTalk's long-time member ibwaldo's family's home-defense shoot: https://www.xdtalk.com/threads/ibwaldos-one-year-update-and-survivor-guide.186358/#post-3064689 (don't believe that because "the Interw3bz? well, in addition to the countless local media mentions that he cited, the story was also published in the January 2011 issue of American Rifleman).

This lone post of his should be sobering: https://www.xdtalk.com/threads/i-need-to-vent.161995/#post-2621864.
 
we are all individuals, with rights, rights to own, buy, carry, and protect our life and the lives of our family.

as i read all the responses, i think it goes without saying, we will all do as we WANT to do, with our guns.

it's the "what if"...that can carry on and on, and on, into infinity, and beyond (as Buzz Lightyear would say) .

people can be mislead, or naive, or so staunch in thier standing on issues, is that the ONLY common consensus, is that we have rights..

it's what happens "if we have to use our cc and IF it was modded in some way, what COULD happen in court"

i really DO respect what others do with thier cc weapon.

as i'd hope those would respect what i do, which is to keep mine, bone stock.
 
TSiWRX said:
At the ~38 minute time-point, Varg speaks of "the horsepower" of having money to push through the legal system.
Click to expand...
That's why I have insurance too. US Law Shield.
And that's why I have more than one firearm. In case that one be taken in as "evidence". I would not be permitted to buy another one while the investigation is on-going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top