Custom Handgun just as bad as Handloads for protection?
- Thread starter Nero45
- Start date
Spats McGee
Administrator
A couple of things are important to understand here:
First, nobody gets sued or prosecuted for using handloads or for using a custom gun, because neither is illegal or tortious. However, that's entirely different from saying that handloads or a custom gun cannot complicate the legal aftermath of a SD shooting.
Second, the legal problems associated with handloads are entirely different from those which would be associated with a custom gun. The handload problem is an evidentiary one and there's an archive of threads in L&CR where all of those issues are dissected. A custom gun doesn't suffer from the same evidentiary problems that handloads do, but may have its own set of problems.
Hammerhead, that 10mm case is the Harold Fish case.
One of the main problems with the idea that "a good shoot is a good shoot" is that the shooter doesn't get to make that decision. Sometimes, a good shoot is only a good shoot after the responding officers, investigators, prosecuting attorney(s), a judge and jury have decided that it was a good shoot.
First, nobody gets sued or prosecuted for using handloads or for using a custom gun, because neither is illegal or tortious. However, that's entirely different from saying that handloads or a custom gun cannot complicate the legal aftermath of a SD shooting.
Second, the legal problems associated with handloads are entirely different from those which would be associated with a custom gun. The handload problem is an evidentiary one and there's an archive of threads in L&CR where all of those issues are dissected. A custom gun doesn't suffer from the same evidentiary problems that handloads do, but may have its own set of problems.
Hammerhead, that 10mm case is the Harold Fish case.
One of the main problems with the idea that "a good shoot is a good shoot" is that the shooter doesn't get to make that decision. Sometimes, a good shoot is only a good shoot after the responding officers, investigators, prosecuting attorney(s), a judge and jury have decided that it was a good shoot.
603Country
New member
Just get a garden variety weapon and garden variety ammo, though it needs to be something you can trust with your life. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you need to justify your actions legally, the people trying to assign guilt to you in criminal court or a civil court will use every angle, however small, to assign that blame or guilt to you. That high dollar pistol that was customized just for you means that you 'were proud of it and wanted to use it'. Those handloads were 'special man-killer' loads. You know those allegations are not true, but everyone else does not know that and beware of the lawyer that puts that thought in their head. Would it go like that? Probably not. Could it go like that? Absolutely. Minimize your exposure.
I have had several dealings with the legal system - none associated with handguns or self defense, for which I am thankful - and my experience has been that lawyers will try anything they think might win their case. The lawyers on both sides are going to try to project an image of you to a judge or a jury, and both sides can be expected to use information of questionable relevance to sway the judge's or jury's opinion of you. That is just the way an adversarial legal system works. If I ever have to use my firearm defensively, I will expect my selection of handgun and ammunition to be brought up, no matter how defensible it may be, and so I make choices that are easily defended.
Mr. Ayoob has written of cases in which a light trigger prompted civil lawyers to claim that an otherwise defensible self-defense shooting was actually a negligent discharge. They don't have to believe it themselves - it is just a tactic that they think might win their case. I don't remember if they won, but defending against such claptrap can be expensive.
My EDC is stock, but everyone gets to make their own choice.
Mr. Ayoob has written of cases in which a light trigger prompted civil lawyers to claim that an otherwise defensible self-defense shooting was actually a negligent discharge. They don't have to believe it themselves - it is just a tactic that they think might win their case. I don't remember if they won, but defending against such claptrap can be expensive.
My EDC is stock, but everyone gets to make their own choice.
Hammerhead
New member
Yeah, a light trigger might be the one thing that would concern me. Not just from a legal point of view, but from a tactical one. I can pull a heavy trigger just fine without adrenaline, so a light one is nothing but a liability when the heart is pounding.
Cheapshooter
New member
I just go by what my CCW class instructor said. "Don't carry exotic firearms or exotic ammo". I think custom handloads, and tricked out guns would qualify as "exotic"
603Country
New member
Consider that in a worst case situation, having had to defend yourself with your weapon. you will be on the hot seat and will have to defend your actions and past actions and every little thing about yourself. The prime objective of the other side's lawyer is to smear you with all the mud and accusations that are possible within legal limits. Do not expect even the smallest bit of fairness or truth. Do not expect justice. When they are finished with you, you won't even recognize the slimy and dangerous creep that they just made you into. Like I said before, minimize your exposure. A fancy custom gun and carefully reloaded ammo constitute exposure. That and a previous public display of anger with an ex-wife (she'll be a witness) or a fist fight in a bar might be all it takes to turn you into a felon. Expect the worst.
In some ways it's like what buddies and I have laughed about when and if you get attacked by a legally protected black bear in Louisiana. Just go ahead and shoot yourself, rather than shoot the bear, because shooting the bear gets you into far worse trouble.
In some ways it's like what buddies and I have laughed about when and if you get attacked by a legally protected black bear in Louisiana. Just go ahead and shoot yourself, rather than shoot the bear, because shooting the bear gets you into far worse trouble.
There are two reasons one might want to exercise restraint in modifying a self-defense firearm.
The first, in my opinion, is function.
In my experience, a decent quality firearm from a company with a good reputation is a pretty good bet, in terms of reliable function, especially if you've done a reasonable checkout on it and maintain it properly.
Once that firearm has been tweaked, adjusted, modified, "upgraded" with different parts, etc., things can really change. I realize this is the Handguns section, but back when you could get new Chinese import SKS rifles for around $50 apiece, I used to get a lot of questions about feeding problems with SKS rifles. I would simply ask the person what kind of aftermarket magazine they were using and wait for them to be amazed that I knew, without their saying, that they were using an aftermarket magazine. But it wasn't really that amazing--those guns tended to work and work well the way they come. It was only when the owner started trying to "improve" them that the problems started.
I also have taken Jerry Miculek's advice, provided on Shooting USA, to heart. It was related to competition, not self-defense, but I believe it's still applicable. His comment was that to win, you have to have equipment that works.
I'm also reminded of a case that was outlined some years ago in American Handgunner magazine where a shopkeeper defended himself with a revolver that he had modified with a drop-in spring kit. It wouldn't fire reliably, and although he prevailed, he encountered a number of misfires while shooting his revolver DA, due to the lightened hammer strike.
So the MAIN reason I try to keep my self-defense guns pretty close to the factory configuration has to do with insuring proper function and reliable operation.
The other issue to consider is that one can run afoul of certain aspects of the law if a gun with certain types of modifications is used in self-defense. People like to focus on that, but, in my opinion, it's a secondary concern. You have to live through a self-defense encounter before you deal with the courts, and if your gun doesn't work, your chances of making it that far are reduced significantly.
But legal concerns shouldn't be dismissed--they can cause a tremendous amount of hassle, expense and possibly even loss of freedom.
As far as legal concerns, there's custom and there's custom.
Disabling safeties and going to trigger pulls that depart significantly from the norm for the particular firearm in question are examples of modifications with a potential for legal pitfalls.
Changing grips & sights, adding a "match barrel", altering the handgun to provide a better individual fit without altering function or other similar modifications are all things that would be very unlikely, in my opinion, to generate any sort of issue at all.
The first, in my opinion, is function.
In my experience, a decent quality firearm from a company with a good reputation is a pretty good bet, in terms of reliable function, especially if you've done a reasonable checkout on it and maintain it properly.
Once that firearm has been tweaked, adjusted, modified, "upgraded" with different parts, etc., things can really change. I realize this is the Handguns section, but back when you could get new Chinese import SKS rifles for around $50 apiece, I used to get a lot of questions about feeding problems with SKS rifles. I would simply ask the person what kind of aftermarket magazine they were using and wait for them to be amazed that I knew, without their saying, that they were using an aftermarket magazine. But it wasn't really that amazing--those guns tended to work and work well the way they come. It was only when the owner started trying to "improve" them that the problems started.
I also have taken Jerry Miculek's advice, provided on Shooting USA, to heart. It was related to competition, not self-defense, but I believe it's still applicable. His comment was that to win, you have to have equipment that works.
I'm also reminded of a case that was outlined some years ago in American Handgunner magazine where a shopkeeper defended himself with a revolver that he had modified with a drop-in spring kit. It wouldn't fire reliably, and although he prevailed, he encountered a number of misfires while shooting his revolver DA, due to the lightened hammer strike.
So the MAIN reason I try to keep my self-defense guns pretty close to the factory configuration has to do with insuring proper function and reliable operation.
The other issue to consider is that one can run afoul of certain aspects of the law if a gun with certain types of modifications is used in self-defense. People like to focus on that, but, in my opinion, it's a secondary concern. You have to live through a self-defense encounter before you deal with the courts, and if your gun doesn't work, your chances of making it that far are reduced significantly.
But legal concerns shouldn't be dismissed--they can cause a tremendous amount of hassle, expense and possibly even loss of freedom.
As far as legal concerns, there's custom and there's custom.
Disabling safeties and going to trigger pulls that depart significantly from the norm for the particular firearm in question are examples of modifications with a potential for legal pitfalls.
Changing grips & sights, adding a "match barrel", altering the handgun to provide a better individual fit without altering function or other similar modifications are all things that would be very unlikely, in my opinion, to generate any sort of issue at all.
taking any special measures to make your handgun or ammunition more effective is an open invitation for an attorney to portray you as a person "spoiling for a fight."
Do you want to be the guy in the witness stand having to explain the $2,000 1911 and $2 a round ammo that you used to kill a teenaged boy who tried to rob you with the leg of a chair?
Wait till they get ahold of your computer postings, and find out that you have actually asked "is it better to kill a bad guy with a cheap gun, or a real expensive one?"
Once you draw the gun, whatever it is, your future is in the hand of lawyers. Don't give them something to use against you.
Do you want to be the guy in the witness stand having to explain the $2,000 1911 and $2 a round ammo that you used to kill a teenaged boy who tried to rob you with the leg of a chair?
Wait till they get ahold of your computer postings, and find out that you have actually asked "is it better to kill a bad guy with a cheap gun, or a real expensive one?"
Once you draw the gun, whatever it is, your future is in the hand of lawyers. Don't give them something to use against you.
There are many custom 1911's that are much more than $2000, and many factory HP's that approach $2 a round, and I would consider a leg of a chair potetially deadly.
If you want to carry an expensive gun do it, if this is what you shoot/handle best dont compromise. Carry what you shoot best, your life could very well depend on it.
It is silly to speculate what any lawyer might do and then try to mould your life around what "could" happen.
It is all speculation, no person in a self defense shooting has EVER had an issue in court using handloads, and I have never heard of anyone having an issue using a high dollar handgun.
Carry and shoot what works best for you, fear the potential threat, not the speculative (never happened) aftermath.
I wouldn't think it would be any worse that having to explain why you used a dreaded "Saturday Night Special" loaded with "military full metal jackets". See, almost any conceivable combination of gun and ammunition can be used to vilify you if one is creative enough.
Like I said before, it's all a cost/benefit ratio. A set of skull and crossbones grips doesn't have any benefit other than stroking one's ego, but it does make one look like a kook when labeled "exhibit A" so I wouldn't recommend it. Likewise, a handloader would be hard pressed to make something that performs significantly better than modern, premium, factory-produced ammunition. Also, with factory ammo you don't have the issues of discrepancies with GSR such as we saw in the Bias case.
Other accessories and "customizations" however do represent significant benefit with only moderate risk. As far as explaining them: "I chose to install these sights on my gun because I can seem them more easily and thus shoot better so that I have less chance of missing my target and hitting an innocent bystander." "I installed aftermarket grips because they make the recoil more controllable and thus allow me to shoot more accurately so that I have less risk of inadvertently hitting an innocent bystander." "I chose to use jacketed hollowpoint ammunition because that is the type most commonly used by police since it is less likely to overpenetrate and cause injury or death to an innocent bystander."
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Exactly!
"I had "Smile, Wait for Flash" engraved on my barrel because..."
Is a lot harder to explain.
"I had "Smile, Wait for Flash" engraved on my barrel because..."
Is a lot harder to explain.
Maybe, but it's a much weaker argument than showing the jury a gun with black skull and crossbones grips and "goblin smoker" engraved on the slide. Like I said before, any combination of gun/ammo could conceivably be twisted around to vilify you if the lawyer is willing to go the reductio ad absurdum route. By the same logic, it could be argued that because you were carrying a loaded gun, you were anticipating shooting someone. This type of argument, however, is going to be a lot tougher to sell because it about as logical as arguing that someone wearing a seatbelt is looking for a car wreck to get into.
Remember, a lawyer can argue anything he likes, but he still has to get the judge and/or jury to buy it. While there are no guarantees in a trial, accessories and customizations that provide real, tangible benefit and have purposes that can be explained to and understood by a normal rational adult are far less likely to get you into legal trouble than a gun which has safety features removed, a ridiculously light trigger, or looks like something out of a comic book.
If the shooting is justified it won't matter what gun or ammunition was used, it is still a justified shooting.
If the shooting was not justified you are screwed and it won't matter what gun or ammunition was used.
The above applies to criminal court. In civil court you are screwed, period! The attorney's fees are going to take everything you have, even if you win.
Dave
If the shooting was not justified you are screwed and it won't matter what gun or ammunition was used.
The above applies to criminal court. In civil court you are screwed, period! The attorney's fees are going to take everything you have, even if you win.
Dave
"cute lawyer tricks", firearm selection, custom features...
When anyone decided to get a concealed carry license or work in a armed industry/occupation, they should give serious thought to the type of firearm they plan to use & the type of carry/duty ammunition.
It's important too, to prepare for the "cute lawyer tricks"(a term gun writer & legal expert Massad Ayoob uses). I'd follow the doctrine of the NYPD re; court actions & testifying; "NEVER volunteer information.".
Ayoob also advises armed citizens to carry the same type or brand of firearm as the local LE agencies. A civil atty or prosecutor would look rather foolish IMO if they critized or debased your use of a P226R, M&P .40, Glock .45acp etc if the local PD with 900 sworn officers uses the same pistol.
The same conditions apply to carry ammunition too. Ranger-T, Golden Saber, DPX, Federal HST, etc are in use nationwide by 100s of LE & security agencies.
In closing, I wouldn't feel using a pistol or sidearm in a critical incident would be excessive when dealing with a violent subject armed with a "chair leg".
In 2011, I had a convicted felon with a long history of mental health problems/violent crimes attack me with a "chair leg type stick". I was on a security post & the subject was trespassed. He returned later that night & attacked me. I contacted 911/law enforcement & the subject was later convicted. He's now in prison for multiple felonies.
ClydeFrog
When anyone decided to get a concealed carry license or work in a armed industry/occupation, they should give serious thought to the type of firearm they plan to use & the type of carry/duty ammunition.
It's important too, to prepare for the "cute lawyer tricks"(a term gun writer & legal expert Massad Ayoob uses). I'd follow the doctrine of the NYPD re; court actions & testifying; "NEVER volunteer information.".
Ayoob also advises armed citizens to carry the same type or brand of firearm as the local LE agencies. A civil atty or prosecutor would look rather foolish IMO if they critized or debased your use of a P226R, M&P .40, Glock .45acp etc if the local PD with 900 sworn officers uses the same pistol.
The same conditions apply to carry ammunition too. Ranger-T, Golden Saber, DPX, Federal HST, etc are in use nationwide by 100s of LE & security agencies.
In closing, I wouldn't feel using a pistol or sidearm in a critical incident would be excessive when dealing with a violent subject armed with a "chair leg".
In 2011, I had a convicted felon with a long history of mental health problems/violent crimes attack me with a "chair leg type stick". I was on a security post & the subject was trespassed. He returned later that night & attacked me. I contacted 911/law enforcement & the subject was later convicted. He's now in prison for multiple felonies.
ClydeFrog
Problem 1: The assumption here is that it's impossible for the gun or ammunition used to affect the determination of whether the shooting was justified or not.
That's simply not true.
For example, if the gun used is considered unsafe or can be made to sound unsafe to the jury, then the prosecutor can make the case that the shooting was accidental. Accidental shootings can not be justified shootings.
Another example would be if the gun or ammunition involved can be used by the prosecutor to create the impression that the shooter was "itching to shoot someone" then that opens the door to convincing the jury that the shooting wasn't actually justified by a legitimate fear of imminent serious injury or death but rather by the defendant's desire to shoot someone. Obvious examples of this would be ammunition loaded with unconventional or unusual bullets that sound "extra-lethal/damaging" --mercury filled hollowpoints, bullets with embedded primers to create exploding rounds, etc. Perhaps less obvious examples would be grips associated with a fictional vigilante character or gun engravings/embellishments that look/sound bloodthirsty or unusually violent.
Problem 2: The fact that a shooting is justified just keeps the defender out of jail. It has little or no bearing on the disposition of any subsequent civil cases related to the shooting. It is much easier for a plaintiff to prevail over a defender in a civil case than it is to convict someone in criminal court because the standard of proof is much easier to attain in civil court.
While that's not entirely true, it's certainly true that avoiding civil court cases is extremely desirable. Even if it were true that gun/ammunition choices had no effect whatsoever on the disposition of criminal cases, it would be wise to make prudent choices simply to reduce the chances of being sued in civil court or to reduce the chances of said suit being successful.