Custom Modifications...

[jwong]

I'm interested in hearing what people's thoughts are on having a gun (that is for self-defense) worked over by a gunsmith, i.e. polishing, throating the barrel, smoothing the trigger pull, etc, etc. Then say that gun is actually used to protect ones-self and the perpetrator who is shot is permentately maimed in some way...

Any thoughts about if an over zealous lawyer would claim that the gun owner was some kind of violent nut because the owner got the gun fixed up? You know how they say that one reason why you should not use handloads for self-defense is because a lawyer might start spinning stories of the gun owner working into the night producing bullets of death!

This might sound pretty crazy, but in today's society with so many crazy lawsuits and with juries being mostly uneducated about guns, it just seems to me that a lawyer could get pretty far in trying to pin something on an innocent gun owner... What are your thoughts???

 

[ShadedDude]

I had never really thought of it in that manner, but I know I will never carry re-loads for that reason. I even heard (not verified) a case where the person had Black Talon bullets in his gun when he fired, and it was thrown in as "why were you carrying such destructive bullets" or something to that effect. For me it would be something to consider, but only to a point. I dont see where having the gun worked over to make it nice and smooth would have an effect, the lawyer would have to know that this was done to the gun.

yeah I know...I just talked in a circle.
Anyone out there with a better thought process?

 

[JJB]

I watched this topic develop on the KTOG a few days ago. I tend to agree with the conclusions coming out there. Modifications and maintenance to insure a reliable defensive weapon are easily defensible with a good lawyer. Modifications that change the function of the gun like trigger work for a very light action or extra powerful handloads might be more of a problem. While some parties might want to see us forced to carry unreliable guns to make it an even fight for the BG I don't think that will quite fly even in this litigious age where we have to protect the newly found rights of the violent perp.
Thanks for an interesting topic for my first post.

 

[4V50]

During the discovery motion, plaintiff's attorney will delve into the firearm so as to ascertain what if any modifications have been made.

They may even try to deep pocket the manufacturer, distributor, seller who were in the commerical chain of distribution for negligence. The poor gunsmith who adjusted your extractor may also be made a codefendant.

What we need are product liability laws to stop this nonsense. Naturally, the various Trial Lawyers' Assn and American BAR will oppose this.

Sorry for this diatribe.

 

[Kodiac]

No No... that needed to be put on the table.
When it comes to gun trials - there is no end to who can end up sued.

Any ways, most smithing doesnt really get called "Modifications". This is why I have shied away from .400 CorBon in my duty gun. (I was lucky to be in an agency that let us pick our own gun, caliber, and ammunitio - upon verbal articulation to the Captain as to why you want it - he had the final say... like when he said I couldnt carry my Cold Steel Vaquero Grande as a Duty Blade. Even if it looked great against my black uniform)
A modification like that would seem a bit aggressive. But you could articulate ammo choice by saying "upon my training and general knowledge, I selected the round for its ability to stop an attacker, and reduce the chance of overpenetrating to help keep the general public safe."

 

[Mute]

Like everyone has said, the type of modification could make a difference.

Regardless, my bottom line, in court, for customizing would be to improve my accuracy, so I don't endager others by missing what I shoot at due to poor equipment. Also, better placement may mean I have to shoot the perpetrator less times to stop him, which may increase the perpetrators chance of surviving a violent encounter.

Remember, your objective in a shootout is to STOP the perpetrator, not kill him. And that would be what I would make very clear to a jury.

 

[jwong]

Thanks to all of you who have responded so far. I appreciate all of the input and thoughts... Here is my thought as well...

I believe that using a non-stock gun could potentially cause some real litigation problems... Gee, call me over cautious, but I just wouldn't want to leave a lawyer with any kind of room to wiggle... After hearing about what I believe to be such non-sense cases (i.e. like the woman who sued McDonalds because the coffee she spilled burned her) my imagination can just run wild about a subject that is much more serious (i.e. a self-defense related shooting)... Am I being overly paranoid, well, probably, but I think that some of the legal cases (gun related that I've heard about) now days are setting some potentially dangerous ground for gun owners... What do you people think???