[Anduril]

Can you quote one case where a modified gun assisted in the prosecution of a person defending themselves under any self defense laws?

Not to get into it (too much), but regardless, attorneys charge a lot per hour (no offense, Shark).
At the very least, there is the possibility of not having to pay legal defense fees relating to modified self-defense firearms, if you simply don't modify them.

 

[bttbbob]

Not to get into it (too much), but regardless, attorneys charge a lot per hour (no offense, Shark).
At the very least, there is the possibility of not having to pay legal defense fees relating to modified self-defense firearms, if you simply don't modify them.

Not to get into it (too much), but regardless, attorneys charge a lot per hour (no offense, Shark).
At the very least, there is the possibility of not having to pay legal defense fees relating to modified self-defense firearms, if you simply don't modify them.

I will modify any gun that I have to make it more user friendly and more accurate in case I need it. I do not care what the courts or attorneys have to say about it. I want to survive a gun fight. And more efficient firearms will allow me to do that.

 

[bttbbob]

Let me post the cases I know of where the prosecution tried to use modifications to prosecute and failed. I do not know of or can find a single one where it made a prosecutions case.
Fla v Alvarez. Alvarez acquitted
Az v Brailsford. Brailsford acquitted
Derosa v Remington Arms. Remington found not liable

There is absolutely zero evidence of precedence nor case law showing any gun modification resulted in the conviction of a person claiming self defense.


In every shooting trial that I testified in. The testimony had to do with make, model, caliber and serial number. Trigger weight was less than 10% of the questioning in testimony. Modifications had zero questions in 10 trials.

Indicea of malice won't fly in almost any court in the US.

Anything other than this is BS and speculation.

 

[mike1956]

In every shooting trial that I testified in. The testimony had to do with make, model, caliber and serial number. Trigger weight was less than 10% of the questioning in testimony. Modifications had zero questions in 10 trials.

Indicea of malice won't fly in almost any court in the US.

Anything other than this is BS and speculation

Had any of those ten trial guns been demonstrably modified?

 

[bttbbob]

Had any of those ten trial guns been demonstrably modified?

Had any of those ten trial guns been demonstrably modified?

Not a single time did that even come into question. But if it did, it would not have mattered. The reality is, there has never been a case where a gun mod made a difference when it came to self defense. A case of self defense is based on if the use of deadly force is justifiable. No more or no less. Anyone that tells you anything else is full of crap.
They would try to make you believe that you could not us a cannon if needed. Well, you can.

 

[Anduril]

I will modify any gun that I have to make it more user friendly and more accurate in case I need it. I do not care what the courts or attorneys have to say about it. I want to survive a gun fight. And more efficient firearms will allow me to do that.

No argument there (as to survival).
I was only mentioning that you still may have to pay attorneys to fight (or at least prepare for the possibility) that the prosecution will try to inject "firearm" embellishments into the case.

I had a vendor-payment case years ago where the vendor was making up all kinds of indefensible BS. (probably with the intent to wear me down, to a more advantageous settlement?)
Like -- crazy person stuff.
I still had to spend the legal fees.

In the end, we settled that case, so I can't really say where the exact money breakdowns occurred.
There's a saying out there that the attorneys are the only ones who really "win" (or something like that).
I would rather all that extraneous BS been kept out of the case --- and in retrospect, I don't think I would do anything to actually encourage it.
So, if my carry guns don't really benefit from modification for my purposes (and mine don't, in my opinion), I see no need to modify them.

If the gun manufacturer gets embroiled into the case (a foreseeable possibility), I can picture their attempt to exit upon the very slightest hint that the weapon had been modified without factory permission, even if in the tiniest respect. (to their advantage to exit). Of course, you could spend more money in attorney fees to fight such an exit, if having the firearms manufacturer "on your side" helps your case any.

For me, it's the same thing with "overly deadly-sounding" ammo names.
I'd rather defend the same brand name the police use, than ammo with a name like "thug killer". For example.

Also, taken to the absurd extreme, one could modify their weapons for fully-automatic fire.
I mean, assuming such modification made the firearm more "user friendly" and/or "more accurate".
That does seem absurd (to me), and also illegal -- which at the very least strongly suggest that there must be some sort of continuum upon which to draw a reasonable line on firearm embellishments. I don't know what, or where, that line might be, and I have zero interest in personally finding out.

 

[bttbbob]

No argument there (as to survival).
I was only mentioning that you still may have to pay attorneys to fight (or at least prepare for the possibility) that the prosecution will try to inject "firearm" embellishments into the case.

I had a vendor-payment case years ago where the vendor was making up all kinds of indefensible BS. (probably with the intent to wear me down, to a more advantageous settlement?)
Like -- crazy person stuff.
I still had to spend the legal fees.

In the end, we settled that case, so I can't really say where the exact money breakdowns occurred.
There's a saying out there that the attorneys are the only ones who really "win" (or something like that).
I would rather all that extraneous BS been kept out of the case --- and in retrospect, I don't think I would do anything to actually encourage it.
So, if my carry guns don't really benefit from modification for my purposes (and mine don't, in my opinion), I see no need to modify them.

If the gun manufacturer gets embroiled into the case (a foreseeable possibility), I can picture their attempt to exit upon the very slightest hint that the weapon had been modified without factory permission, even if in the tiniest respect. (to their advantage to exit). Of course, you could spend more money in attorney fees to fight such an exit, if having the firearms manufacturer "on your side" helps your case any.

For me, it's the same thing with "overly deadly-sounding" ammo names.
I'd rather defend the same brand name the police use, than ammo with a name like "thug killer". For example.

Also, taken to the absurd extreme, one could modify their weapons for fully-automatic fire.
I mean, assuming such modification made the firearm more "user friendly" and/or "more accurate".

In todays society, if you use a gun in self defense. It is going to be bad. You will have criminal and civil issues no matter what. You will be defending it in a court of law. The only thing that matters, no matter how much bs they throw at you. Was the shooting justified under self defense? Your gun, your mods, your holster, your history, is all irrelevant.

 

[Denverd0n]

Your history is irrelevant!?! No. Sorry, but that is just so very obviously wrong. History is brought up quite frequently in self-defense cases.

Now I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong (and probably throw in a few invectives in the process) but anyone who has followed even just a few recent self-defense cases knows -- without any doubt -- that history is very definitely NOT irrelevant!

 

[bttbbob]

Your history is irrelevant!?! No. Sorry, but that is just so very obviously wrong. History is brought up quite frequently in self-defense cases.

Now I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong (and probably throw in a few invectives in the process) but anyone who has followed even just a few recent self-defense cases knows -- without any doubt -- that history is very definitely NOT irrelevant!

Your history is irrelevant!?! No. Sorry, but that is just so very obviously wrong. History is brought up quite frequently in self-defense cases.

Now I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong (and probably throw in a few invectives in the process) but anyone who has followed even just a few recent self-defense cases knows -- without any doubt -- that history is very definitely NOT irrelevant!

Ok I will play. Show me a single self defense case that was actually self defense, where it mattered.

 

[Shark1007]

Sure, Bob, one of the first I recall was State v Alvarez, early eighties where LEO had modified his handgun in violation of department policy. He shot a BG who was armed but the modification was a strong feature of the case. Most never get reported because these type trial court decisions are highly discretionary and there’s not a mechanism to report circuit court decisions like appellate ones. The jury verdict was NG but the defendant officer was probably regretting his modification decision quite a bit as it was dragged in front of the jury.

There have been several more I’m personally aware of, just not hundreds as you suggest above. If you got that from a news source, there’s no way for that information to be other than fabricated I would think.

 

[racer88]

Here's a pretty good video interview of a defense attorney on the subject.

So, I feel pretty "safe" with my approach. My defensive firearms are unembellished and unmodified mechanically. But, my range toys are pretty much immaterial and open territory, since they are extremely unlikely to be involved in a self-defense action.

 

[bttbbob]

Sure, Bob, one of the first I recall was State v Alvarez, early eighties where LEO had modified his handgun in violation of department policy. He shot a BG who was armed but the modification was a strong feature of the case. Most never get reported because these type trial court decisions are highly discretionary and there’s not a mechanism to report circuit court decisions like appellate ones. The jury verdict was NG but the defendant officer was probably regretting his modification decision quite a bit as it was dragged in front of the jury.

There have been several more I’m personally aware of, just not hundreds as you suggest above. If you got that from a news source, there’s no way for that information to be other than fabricated I would think.

Sure, Bob, one of the first I recall was State v Alvarez, early eighties where LEO had modified his handgun in violation of department policy. He shot a BG who was armed but the modification was a strong feature of the case. Most never get reported because these type trial court decisions are highly discretionary and there’s not a mechanism to report circuit court decisions like appellate ones. The jury verdict was NG but the defendant officer was probably regretting his modification decision quite a bit as it was dragged in front of the jury.

There have been several more I’m personally aware of, just not hundreds as you suggest above. If you got that from a news source, there’s no way for that information to be other than fabricated I would think.

Shark, brother you do this all the time. Just stop. Give me the exact case where a modification mattered. Otherwise you are continuing to promote the same BS, I have heard for decades. Fact, there is no precedence nor case law that says any modification sways the law. It is nothing but your opinion and those of others that have no basis of fact.

 

[bttbbob]

Here's a pretty good video interview of a defense attorney on the subject.

So, I feel pretty "safe" with my approach. My defensive firearms are unembellished and unmodified mechanically. But, my range toys are pretty much immaterial and open territory, since they are extremely unlikely to be involved in a self-defense action.

Another opinion that is worthless.

 

[Shark1007]

That’s the case, Bob, it did matter, friend of mine defended. The plain truth is respectfully you just don’t understand enough of how the system works to have an actual debate. It’s pretty obvious you fabricated again about “tried hundreds of times” because if one really understands how the system works, they understand that information is largely unobtainable because it’s just not reported.

 

[racer88]

Another opinion that is worthless.

Did you watch it? Or have seen it before?

He actually agrees with you / us for the most part. Yes... prosecutors can bring up ANYTHING (virtually) they want. Whether it will be successful or not is another matter. It would appear that it's virtually never a factor in the outcome of the case. It can be a factor in the PROCESS of the case, but not directly related to the outcome.

When the facts of the case strongly support justifiable self-defense, those other things seem to become less and less relevant. Sure, it will make things uncomfortable. It may cost more money, time and effort to defend. But, if the case is solid, it's solid. Ask Kyle Rittenhouse. They tried to drag him through the mud. It didn't work. And, it appears that it virtually never works... IF the defendant has a solid case.

Me, personally... I'm not embellishing my defensive weapons. I'm fortunate enough to not have just ONE gun to fulfill ever facet of my gun hobby. If that was the case, then yeah... I'm not going to modify it, since ONE of the purposes is defensive and I'd rather keep it stock.... my preference. If I'm going to buy and own just one gun, I'm going to get one that pretty much checks all my boxes without modification. With the plethora of choices, that's a pretty easy goal.

But, I have a bunch of guns. I have plenty of defensive guns. I'm not embellishing nor modifying them mechanically, out of pragmatism. Doing so would serve no purpose for me. I'm good with them bone stock, except maybe an adhesive grip and different sights.

And, that's one of the reasons I started building guns that are purely recreational. I'm dressing them up with bling, slogans, and symbols. I'm modifying the triggers to be lighter and crisper (for precision target shooting). They will NEVER be used defensively... because I've got PLENTY of other guns for that purpose. These are my FUN guns. As such, I believe I have nothing to worry about. I can modify and embellish them to my hearts content without ANY worry.

The attorney in the interview makes that distinction - between defensive and recreational / competition guns. Most of the arguments ringing the alarm bells of paranoia are based on the assumption of a singular gun intended to serve all purposes.

Surely, someone will come along and suggest I should worry about those, too. Just as I should "worry" about what I say on social media. Well, there comes a point where I draw the line. I'm going to be me and express myself. Let the chips fall where they may. I won't go tip-toeing through life perpetually worried and looking over my virtual shoulder to see who might be listening in. I live a pretty virtuous life. My history is clean. I'm a good guy. I will let that speak for itself. If someone is going to twist my words and intent in the future, so be it. Bring it on! I'll be reasonably careful but not paranoid.

 

[bttbbob]

That’s the case, Bob, it did matter, friend of mine defended. The plain truth is respectfully you just don’t understand enough of how the system works to have an actual debate. It’s pretty obvious you fabricated again about “tried hundreds of times” because if one really understands how the system works, they understand that information is largely unobtainable because it’s just not reported.

Again please state the case where it made a difference or you are spouting the same BS that hasn’t mattered in like forever.
Give me one case where a gun modification was the cause of a guilty verdict. You can’t.

 

[bttbbob]

Did you watch it? Or have seen it before?

He actually agrees with you / us for the most part. Yes... prosecutors can bring up ANYTHING (virtually) they want. Whether it will be successful or not is another matter. It would appear that it's virtually never a factor in the outcome of the case. It can be a factor in the PROCESS of the case, but not directly related to the outcome.

When the facts of the case strongly support justifiable self-defense, those other things seem to become less and less relevant. Sure, it will make things uncomfortable. It may cost more money, time and effort to defend. But, if the case is solid, it's solid. Ask Kyle Rittenhouse. They tried to drag him through the mud. It didn't work. And, it appears that it virtually never works... IF the defendant has a solid case.

Me, personally... I'm not embellishing my defensive weapons. I'm fortunate enough to not have just ONE gun to fulfill ever facet of my gun hobby. If that was the case, then yeah... I'm not going to modify it, since ONE of the purposes is defensive and I'd rather keep it stock.... my preference. If I'm going to buy and own just one gun, I'm going to get one that pretty much checks all my boxes without modification. With the plethora of choices, that's a pretty easy goal.

But, I have a bunch of guns. I have plenty of defensive guns. I'm not embellishing nor modifying them mechanically, out of pragmatism. Doing so would serve no purpose for me. I'm good with them bone stock, except maybe an adhesive grip and different sights.

And, that's one of the reasons I started building guns that are purely recreational. I'm dressing them up with bling, slogans, and symbols. I'm modifying the triggers to be lighter and crisper (for precision target shooting). They will NEVER be used defensively... because I've got PLENTY of other guns for that purpose. These are my FUN guns. As such, I believe I have nothing to worry about. I can modify and embellish them to my hearts content without ANY worry.

The attorney in the interview makes that distinction - between defensive and recreational / competition guns. Most of the arguments ringing the alarm bells of paranoia are based on the assumption of a singular gun intended to serve all purposes.

Surely, someone will come along and suggest I should worry about those, too. Just as I should "worry" about what I say on social media. Well, there comes a point where I draw the line. I'm going to be me and express myself. Let the chips fall where they may. I won't go tip-toeing through life perpetually worried and looking over my virtual shoulder to see who might be listening in. I live a pretty virtuous life. My history is clean. I'm a good guy. I will let that speak for itself. If someone is going to twist my words and intent in the future, so be it. Bring it on! I'll be reasonably careful but not paranoid.

If I ever have to shoot someone in self defense, I have a pretty serious footprint on social media. I am prepared to defend my decision at any cost.
45 yrs as an instructor. 60,000 students and 600 instructor candidates. An expert witness in federal, state and municipal courts. Contracts with the federal government in military, police and contractor services. The government claims I am an expert, the military claims I am an expert and the courts claim I am an expert.
A prosecutor or lawyer better bring his A game and not rhetoric if he wants to prosecute me.
Feelings in a court room do not make fact.

 

[MPDC66]

I wonder what the track record of modified weapons is in civil cases? Not suggesting it matters in criminal procedures (or doesn’t) but how about law suits?

 

[racer88]

If I ever have to shoot someone in self defense, I have a pretty serious footprint on social media. I am prepared to defend my decision at any cost.
45 yrs as an instructor. 60,000 students and 600 instructor candidates. An expert witness in federal, state and municipal courts. Contracts with the federal government in military, police and contractor services. The government claims I am an expert, the military claims I am an expert and the courts claim I am an expert.
A prosecutor or lawyer better bring his A game and not rhetoric if he wants to prosecute me.
Feelings in a court room do not make fact.

Ah... so I can quit worrying my pretty little head about you, eh?

While my credentials and history pale in comparison, I am also quite confident that my background and history will reflect favorably upon me. 🙃

 

[bttbbob]

Ah... so I can quit worrying my pretty little head about you, eh?

While my credentials and history pale in comparison, I am also quite confident that my background and history will reflect favorably upon me. 🙃

And that is what matters. Stop listening to these so called experts on mods. It has no bearing on self defense cases. The only thing that matters is if the self defense shooting meets the self defense guidelines at trial. The rest is in fact rhetoric.