Legal issues facing gun modifications

We are getting to the 'meat and potatoes' of the discussion now. That's great. There are some interesting points of view here. I would like to get some opinions or views from some legal minded people on this subject of modifications on a gun. (ie. LEO's, Lawyers, DA's, even Judges) Keep in mind that I do not have any ulterior motives behind posting this topic and I'm not preparing for anything, (like getting into any trouble). I am actually trying to do the right and legal thing in choosing the pistol that I carry everyday for self-defense. That's it! One of the reasons that I chose to carry a Glock besides the durability, etc. is because of the action and trigger. They call it a "Safe-Action". It's as close to a double-action only gun as you can get, but to me the trigger pull falls somewhere between a single and double action pistol. Also, you have to have you finger phsically on the trigger for the gun to fire. It also has 3 different safety mechanisms. Most jury members might be used to seeing a manual safety on a pistol and might question why the Glock doesn't have one. This is where an expert witness like a Glock armorer or Glock representative might have to be called to explain how the gun operates and the different safeties. Anyway, keep the good opinions coming. I really liked Jeff OMTG's post on 4-13.
 
I would like to thank all who responded with comments, suggestions, and observations. The info. was interesting and informative. I am going to back out of this discussion so it can continue of others are still interested in the topic or the moderator can remove this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top