Custom Handgun just as bad as Handloads for protection?

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.
Click to expand...

This means to be cognizant of the risks of trial. Make your own decisions; I could not care less what they are. The consequences are not mine.

When and if you have to draw the gunsmith tuned hi cap 45 with "blow their a** away special" engraved on the slide, loaded with double tap (Could you explain to the jury exactly what the words double tap mean?") nobody else is going to be able to save your butt if you are targeted by a social climbing politically motivated NYC prosecutor, and a jury of people who were hand picked to put you in jail.

When people deny that this REALITY exists, you are, in fact and action, encouraging other people to go ahead and take that very risk.

"Smile, and wait for the flash"
Click to expand...

If you choose not to wear the seat belt, have the decency to allow those on the fence to think about those risks without dismissing them with a post about them being nonsense.

I think that ted nugent's recent experience proves that you don't even have to shoot someone to face criminal investigation and financial loss.

Goal #1 in life is "don't make a target out of yourself." Goal # 2 is learn how to achieve #1 Ignore reality at your own risk
 
Goal #1 in life is "don't make a target out of yourself." Goal # 2 is learn how to achieve #1 Ignore reality at your own risk
Click to expand...

I guess, for me, is that there is no trial law examples to call this "reality"

Granted, putting a skull and a silly slogan on your gun is something I would not do (not real classy)

I have no issues with anyone carrying a custom SD hangun with handloads, simply because there has never been an example of this being an issue.

If people want to point at every example of SD carry that could cause an "issue" the list would be much longer than carring a custom handgun or handloads.

I will only live in fear of those that pose a immediate risk to me and my loved ones.

worrying about hypothetical situations that can "possibly" come in the aftermath is ridiculous, especially when it has never happened.
 
I use what I think is best for me including handloads when I believe they do best in a particular gun.
I think some are so concerned about lawyers that they may not be able to shoot when/if required. I say use what you believe gives you the best chance for survival and to win. Let the chips then fall as they will.
If you cannot carry without worrying about the lawyers then don't carry.

I just 'aint concerned about it.

Jerry
 
I think some are so concerned about lawyers that they may not be able to shoot when/if required.
Click to expand...
The point is that you can be concerned about lawyers and still put yourself in a situation where you don't have to worry about shooting when required. All you have to do is make some common sense decisions.
I say use what you believe gives you the best chance for survival and to win.
Click to expand...
I agree. I just don't believe that my "best chance for survival" involves a handgun that's been customized to the point that it could legitimately become a problem in court. In fact, I earlier pointed out that the main reason my self-defense guns are pretty close to factory configuration is for reliability/function.
If you cannot carry without worrying about the lawyers then don't carry.
Click to expand...
I worry about lawyers BEFORE I carry and then I don't have to worry about them while I carry. More to the point, I believe the decisions I've made as a result of considering the issue carefully will keep me from having to worry after a shooting. I won't have to "let the chips fall where they may", I've stacked the deck in my favor.
I guess, for me, is that there is no trial law examples to call this "reality".
Click to expand...
Well, first of all, let me commend you on your research into trial law examples. That's a good approach to making a careful decision.

That said, I don't think your research has been adequate. If it were, you would have found a fairly high-profile case in FL involving a police officer named Luis Alvarez where the prosecutor tried to make a case against the officer in an attempt to prove that the shooting was accidental instead of justified. In that case, the prosecutor tried to make an issue of grips that were not departmental issue (custom grips, if you will) and a lightened trigger return spring.
...especially when it has never happened.
Click to expand...
This is problematic 2 ways. The fact that something has never happened doesn't mean it can't happen. After all, every legal precedent is a result of a "first time". If things could never happen simply because they've never happened before, we wouldn't have nuclear weapons, firearms, airplanes, the list goes on.

Second, it doesn't appear you've exerted even a minimal effort in making your determination that "it has never happened". I did an internet search using the terms 'modified' 'gun' 'court' 'case' and the fourth link returned referred to two different cases involving modified guns. One a criminal case where the defendant eventually prevailed though it cost him "heavily" in lawyer fees and a second where a homeowner lost his civil case over shooting an intruder with a modified 10/22 and had to pay a judgement to the criminal.
 
The fact that something has never happened doesn't mean it can't happen. After all, every legal precedent is a result of a "first time". If things could never happen simply because they've never happened before
Click to expand...

So are you saying I should wear a helmet from now on in case I get hit by a meterorite?
 
If you're saying that you don't think you need a helmet for meteorite protection because no one's ever been hit by a meteorite before then your reasoning is flawed for at least 3 reasons.

First of all, it is not true that no one has ever been hit by a meteorite. A quick internet search will turn up a revealing case.

Second, if one were concerned about meteorite protection, I don't believe a simple helmet would provide adequate protection based on the information available on meteorites.

Third, the decision on whether or not to wear protection against meteorite strikes would much more logically be predicated on the probability of such an event rather than on the mistaken assumption that it's never happened before.

But no, that's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is two things.

1. If you had done any significant research into the topic you wouldn't be making pronouncements about how the topic under discussion has never been an issue in court.

2. Even if you could prove that it had never happened, that wouldn't be proof that it couldn't happen, nor that the subject wasn't worthy of consideration.
 
I think you would really have to research this by states and then by judicial districts, find specific cases and their outcomes.
 
For home defense, I prefer my M&P .45 full sized. I love the feel and 10 rounds, plus a light mount to see what the threat is. It replaced my Ruger P97 as a 'nightstand' gun.

In both cases I feel they will serve me reliably, are as accurate as I need for self defense within 15 yards, and I will not cry when they are taken by the police as evidence.

Furthermore, I will not be unduly upset if the judge says the handgun is to be destroyed, but no charges [civil or criminal] are filed. I'll be upset, but not the same as if it were a $2000+ les baer or something.

Almost all of my handguns are somewhat customized: smoothened the 'grit' out of trigger pulls, different stocks/grips, etc. However, only two are what I would call a 'custom gun'. One I would never dream of using for home defense, while the other would work just fine.

I have a Caspian Race-Ready frame and slide that I built up for a dedicated range gun. With a 3 lb trigger, it would only serve as a home defense gun if I couldn't get to anything else. I'd never plan on carrying this or using it for Home Defense, due to the light trigger and 'custom' nature of the gun.

The other is a DGFM/Sistema that was my labratory. It has the original frame and main spring housing, but I've replaced everything else. It has a trigger pull between 5 and 1/4 to 5 and 1/2 lbs, I forget which at this time. If I had to, I'd use it for a carry or home defense gun, as it looks just like any other 1911, except I put it together. A test of it's functions will reveal it is not a light-weight trigger. Heck, my Kimber has a 4 lb 3 oz trigger from the factory and my RIA Tactical is 4 lbs 7 oz from the factory.

However, I'd still prefer my M&P 45 or Ruger P97 for home defense, and my M&P 9c for a carry gun [unless in the woods with a Ruger GP100]. I'd prefer something that looks 'stock', has a 5lb trigger pull or greater and isn't going to lose me $1000 or more if the gun is gone forever.



I understand all of those who say 'use the best tool for the job'. I really do. I just don't want to lose all of the money invested if I can use a less expensive model that is just as reliable and accurate. And I'll be honest: I am as confident of my Ruger P97 and my S&W M&P pistols as I am of any 1911/Hi Power or other design. I have more 'tweaking' issues to clean up on my 1911s and Hi Powers than my M&Ps. They are just boring enough to simply work without massaging.

Plus, I understand the potential PR liability of carrying a $2000 gun for concealed carry. It really shouldn't matter how much the gun costs, but some lawyers make it an issue and a civil court jury may be dumb enough to ignore the fact my [or my wife's] life was at stake.

just my $.02
 
]
1. If you had done any significant research into the topic you wouldn't be making pronouncements about how the topic under discussion has never been an issue in court.
Click to expand...

I must be missing something, I didn't find any case of a self defense shooting where a civilian carrying a concealed weapon had an issue in court because of a custom handgun. Could you post a link?



2. Even if you could prove that it had never happened, that wouldn't be proof that it couldn't happen, nor that the subject wasn't worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...

Consideration; maybe.
Saying that it "will" happen or that it is a "reality" is ridiculous.

After all, you have just as much chance (maybe less) of that happening as you have of being struck by a meteorite.
 
My .45 is over $1,200, and I honestly am beginning to question if it's a wise idea to carry a gun more expensive than a Glock or M&P for self-defense if I might lose it to the police.
Click to expand...

You should carry the best gun you can afford to carry with the best ammo that functions in the gun.

If you think your $1200 .45 is better for SD than your $550 Glock, it would be stupid to not carry your $1200 .45. What doing so says is that you are playing a greater value on the cost difference of the guns ($650) than you are placing on your own life.

I had a buddy in college who road a motorcycle. When he had bad exams, he would wear his $10 garage sale helmet instead of his $350 Bell full face helment. As he noted, it would be stupid to a $350 helmet on a $10 head, so he went with the $10 helmet. If he did well, he used the $350 helmet because it was the best helmet he could afford to put on his priceless head.

Think about it.

So carry that which you feel gives you the best protection. If you lose it for a while to the cops, that is likely much better than carrying something that doesn't protect you as well and having you run the increased possibility of being dead or injured. Just as an aside note, that $650 difference in the price of the gun is likely to be devoured within minutes of your arrival to the emergency room and if not there, then in your lost wages and associated hassles of being shot.
 
It's pretty simple.
John Edwards and his ilk make their fortunes by convincing supposedly intelligent people believe ridiculous claims. Don't give them any more to grab hold of than necessary.
Remember, you are already a bad person in the minds of the left and the gullible: you're a gun owner. How many of your jury members fall into those two categories.
Church going family man=religious zealot
Honorably served in the military=trained killer.
Gun owner=gun nut
conservative values=right wing nut job
Community volunteer=activist
Gun collection=arsenal
Pillar of the community=privileged political insider.
And so forth. I could probably go on.
So maybe those cool Punisher grips & the match trigger job aren't going to look nearly as cool when used to paint you as some Walter Mitty type spoiling for a fight by some ambulance chaser in a $1500 suit.
 
Gun owner=gun nut
conservative values=right wing nut job
Gun collection=arsenal
Click to expand...
Gun board moderator=squasher of 1st Amendment.

Let's avoid broad politics. Former Presidential candidates aren't really relevant here.
 
Gun board moderator=squasher of 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

That is just so deeply funny on so many levels.

Can't you see an attorney using the responsibility you bear in this position to prove that you have an overbearing, dominating, oppressing personality that drives you to be the crusher of dreams, who shot the innocent panhandling teenager because your job as a squasher of 1st ammendment rights doesn't provide you enough opportunities to vent your hatred of your fellow man?

"It is possible that he shot this teenaged boy scout, marching band member, choir boy, and honor student because of his accidental usage of bad grammar when he asked him for some spare change for bus fare!"

When they want to, they will be able to find a way to "prove" that you are a very bad man.
 
I'll give a personal example. I carry stock weapons. 9 mm, .38 special, .357. I use pretty standard ammo. the weapon designs date back to the early part of the century, and both of the revovlers are over 40 years old.

If an atty wanted to make an example of me, as sometimes happens in high profile cases, he would have financial and time resources.

he wouldn't waste a second looking at my "arsenal."

When he subpoenad my personal information he would find that I now or have received treatment with antiseizure drugs, antipsychotic drugs, antidepressants, "personality stabilization drugs," and other medications meant to alter my "perception of reality."

he'd find that I am a reclusive person, who really isn't particularly happy around people. I have paranoid tendencies. he would read that I have had rages and occasionally beaten the heck out of people (who really deserved it) when I was in school.

his conclusion and statement to the jury would be that I am an unstable and damaged person who represented a danger to society all of my life, and should never have been allowed to carry a weapon. my reality is defined by powerful drugs, and my perceptions are medically altered. It takes medications just for me to be able to function "normally" from day to day, and let's not forget,

"He forgets to take them several times per week!"

If I was involved in a doubtful shooting, I believe that even a lot of members here would vote to convict. My own father would. Nothing presented in my defense could counter the picture he could create of me being a deranged kook who would be making bombs if I was only smart enough.
 
your job as a squasher of 1st ammendment rights doesn't provide you enough opportunities to vent your hatred of your fellow man?
Click to expand...
No, I take care of that through interpretive dance ;)

You've got a point, though. An overzealous prosecutor might look for any number of factors to "prove" that I'm an unhinged vigilante. Heck, interrogate my circle of friends long enough, and you'll probably find some sort of eccentricity. There can be any number of factors.

That said, it's probably best not to add to them by walking the streets in full ninja gear, toting a gun with Punisher grips and "this end towards hippies" engraved on the slide.
 
"this end towards hippies"
Click to expand...


You just about made me spit my coffee.

Just imagine if you got mugged by a hippie and shot him in the process, while carrying that gun. I'd love to sit on that jury, because the book deal would be worth a fortune.
 
These debates are pointless. They go no where because there is no definitive answer. This is nothing beyond opinions based on a very small sample of data which in the end renders the conclusions meaningless.

All poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles. You can logically reduce any and all arguments on either side with this simple logical litmus test.

Why do we as a community feels the need to debate this every other week...

State your opinion choose for yourself and move on with life.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top