Using a modified firearm in a self defense situation...

[Angered_Kabar]

I'm sure we've all heard how it might get you in trouble in court. It's in the gun rags, it's repeated everywhere on the internet. I haven't heard it in a gunshop yet, but maybe I need to stick around a couple minutes longer.

I think this is all hooey. Even when "experts" talk about it, it's all speculative.

Here's the challenge. Find a court case where someone had to use a modified firearm in a self defense situation and the modification was used against the victim in court. Now tell us if that got the victim in trouble.

 

[MR Redneck]

If the modifications are legal I see nothing to worry about.
Ammo has been a subject. A few of my friend in LE have warned me about "custom" ammo. Things like shotshell with carpet tacks in em, and they even mantioned custom loads.
I know several people who like the idea of factory defense loads just in case.

 

[Angered_Kabar]

I keep hearing stuff about only using factory ammo for defense from cops. I think most departments probably have protocols about this for legal reasons.

 

[KAK]

I think the factory ammo thing is about a higher level of automation indicative of a large ammunition company that lends itself to fewer defects.

I did hear about an instance where caliber choice (10mm) came back to bite a guy in the ass in court after he used it in defense.

 

[Angered_Kabar]

I think the factory ammo thing is about a higher level of automation indicative of a large ammunition company that lends itself to fewer defects.

I did hear about an instance where caliber choice (10mm) came back to bite a guy in the ass in court after he used it in defense.

Get a link for the actual case.

Too much "I heard from a guy who knew a guy who heard from his cousin that worked as a stenographer"...

 

[Bithabus]

A good shoot is a good shoot. Unless the mod is illegal which could result in loss of justification, I don't see "more deadly bullets" being an issue.

Never heard of a real case where it was an issue, when the shoot was clearly good.

 

[KAK]

Look up Harold Fish. Arizona of all places!

 

[Texas1911]

Massad Ayoob is notorious for bringing up alot of viable arguments and alot of over-thinking on this subject. His articles are publicized alot, and he talks on the subject quite often; including using reloads, etc.

In the case of gun modifications, I think it's a safe bet that 99.9% of legal modifications are defensible in court, at least here in Texas. Mr. Ayoob is writing for a national audience, including California, where even the slightest kink in the armor will make a prosecutor salivate like a starving dog before a mound of steaks.

 

[Bithabus]

Look up Harold Fish.

IIRC, according to the laws of his jurisdiction, that was a questionable shoot.

But yeah, he got railroaded and the ignorant jurors didn't like his "cannon".

 

[Angered_Kabar]

Putting things into perspective so far...

One case that was overruled where a guy used a cartridge that is slightly more suitable for defending one's self against dangerous game than more popular handgun rounds.

And everyone is running around with a whole bunch of what-ifs.

 

[Bithabus]

nevermind

 

[lalonguecarabine]

It's the "what ifs" that are the problem.
Senor El Guapo is correct about Mr. Ayoob's writings. I've been reading his stuff for years now! He's actually the first writer I read that talked about only using factory ammo for self defense, and advocated carrying the same types of loads as your local police, etc. etc.
Also, as Senor El Guapo pointed out, he's writing for a broad audience, with an emphasis on Krazifornia, where he is actually a police officer. So he's likely writing from a severely restrained perspective.
According to his own writings, he's been called as an expert witness in a number of self defense shootings.

My best advice: Find yourself a reputable lawyer who knows the laws in the area you live in and see what he says.

 

[dobarker]

I don't see "more deadly bullets" being an issue.

It wouldn't surprise me to see "lowly deadly" rounds hit the market as opposed to the court suggested "highly deadly" rounds we currently use.

 

[lalonguecarabine]

It wouldn't surprise me to see "lowly deadly" rounds hit the market as opposed to the court suggested "highly deadly" rounds we currently use.

LOL! No doubt!
You're supposed to just kill them, not kill the hell outta them! Gosh! What was I thinking?

 

[SIG_Fiend]

First you have to be alive to be sued or convicted of anything. Once a person is competent in handling a firearm, then they should consider what, if any, modifications may help improve their performance. This could mean accessories or it could mean internal modification. My defensive guns have always been modified to some degree as it improves my performance and efficiency and makes me that much more likely to be able to save my life. While it's important not to do unnecessarily stupid stuff, living in fear of "what the court might do" could get people killed too. Just do what you have to do to run your gun as effectively as possible, and get a good lawyer if you ever have to.

 

[Texas42]

What kind of mod's are we talking about?

The only thing I can think of is adding d a laser/light, trigger job, or adding specials sights. I mean, adding a spear to your P226 make look cool and everything. . . I probably wouldn't use one of those super competition guns (ok, I don't own one ) . A $500-$600 with just a couple modifications and $100 in ammo through it will work for most people. I generally think people way overthink things sometimes. Yeah, the average joe jury is not that gun bright . . . but as Sig_fiend says, you gotta survive to trial.


I use factory ammo cause its more reliable than my own loads. I think I could do it. . . . .my hunting loads take a long time, and I'd use those in a heartbeat, but I've had some oops momens with my reloads. Theres been flipped primers, and that batch of 9mm that was way over expanded and didn't hold neck tension properly. Besides, most of the best bullets aren't sold to reloaders.

 

[cuate]

Assuming that a person has to use a firearm in defense of his life, property, or defense of others and is in an unfriendly jurisdiction as to being ethnically different from say the person killed, the group in power as in the District or County Attorney. Then assuming that the nature of Prosecuters in general make great afforts to win....And we are not talking about common thug and gangsta murders, but real under the law self defense....They will use everything in the book to obtain a conviction, weapon, ammo, anything !

Better not get caught with or using hollow point ammo in damnyankee places like New Jersey ! God Bless Texas, our Birthplace !

 

[kurt]

I think some prosecutors will use any modification to paint a picture of the shooter as someone "looking for a fight". Much like a person owning a sports car is more likely to speed.

 

[Texan2]

A good shoot is a good shoot. Unless the mod is illegal which could result in loss of justification, I don't see "more deadly bullets" being an issue.

Never heard of a real case where it was an issue, when the shoot was clearly good.

+1

 

[majormadmax]

A good shoot is a good shoot. Unless the mod is illegal which could result in loss of justification, I don't see "more deadly bullets" being an issue.

Never heard of a real case where it was an issue, when the shoot was clearly good.

I agree as well, and that if I find myself in a situation where I had to use lethal force, this would be the least of my concerns...

But don't laugh too hard, lalonguecarabine; as the reason JHPs are not allowed in combat is because they are determined to cause "more suffering" than a normal FMJ round! That was the logic behind Declaration III of the Hague Convention of 1899...

Cheers! M2