Legal ramifications of smithing your own pistols...

B

BigMike

New member
I was wondering...what are/would be the legal ramifications if one were to use a pistol in a self-defense scenario, that was "tuned-up" by the person(including trigger jobs, trigger spring replacements etc.) defending themselves?

Wouldn't it make more sense to put that responsibility on a licensed smith?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Mike
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigMike:
I was wondering...what are/would be the legal ramifications if one were to use a pistol in a self-defense scenario, that was "tuned-up" by the person(including trigger jobs, trigger spring replacements etc.) defending themselves?

Wouldn't it make more sense to put that responsibility on a licensed smith?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Mike[/quote]

I don't think that would even come into play in a criminal court case concerning self defense.
However, in a civil liability, it could be a concern. But the smith only did the work...the person who authorized (and paid for) would more likely be held accountable.
But even in a civil case, unless it was for product liability (gun blows up in your hand), it's unlikely a tricked up piece would be relevent.
 
I imagine I could make a pretty good case that non-commercial tinkering has been a hobby for forty years--both guns and cars. So, I'm merely using "stuff" which has been around for decades in my hobby.

In a civil suit situation, I'd try to get the point to a jury that any gun can kill. I doubt there would be disagreement, there. The obvious question, after that, would be, "What difference does any particular gun make, if they ALL can kill?"

A .22 Hammerli Free Pistol for Olympic use would be an awkward piece of junk for a self-defense scenario--but it can kill.

FWIW, Art
 
Glocks never require the services of a gunsmith. However, unless you've accidentally shot somebody, I don't think that you'd have to worry about either criminal or civil litigation. Making your gun "more deadly" is kind of like making your wife "more pregnant". If deadly force is justifiable, the law doesn't specify what kind of weapon (or even if you use a weapon) that you use. A ball-peen hammer can be just as effective, in some situations, as any handgun.
 
Would that we all lived in your part of the world Walter. The DA in LA routinely makes an issue of modifications to guns used in self defense. The most famous case being the death of Natasha Harlan. The DA used the fact that the revolver in question had a "hair line" trigger to try to prosecute the shooter. Luckily the shooter's defense attorney turned tables and used the "hair line" trigger to prove the shooting was accidental. Everything that can be used against will be, either by the DA or in civil litigation.

------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
 
Ungrounded prosecutors and all plaintiffs' attorneys will go to great lengths to determine how much of a "gun nut" one is. Much more important in a civil case, your deposition would probably include questions such as: total no. of guns owned, pubs. read, time spent shooting, handling and cleaning, personal CJ viewpoints, mods. done to any and all guns, use of silhouette targets rather than circular, possibly even sociological views. The more of a "gun nut" they can paint you, the easier it is to portray you as one who is not just interested in defending him or herself or family, but as a renegade out "looking for trouble" or looking for "justice".

All of the above comments are in regard to a shooting in a valid defensive scenario; if it's a matter of your shooting someone accidentally as a result of an ND, whether it's through a trigger that's been lightened too much or careless and ignorant handling, your goose is cooked no matter what!
 
If all of you lived in my part of the world, then my part of the world would be as screwed up as your part of the world. Can't fathom a place that would send Feinstein and Boxer to the U.S. Senate. (Nor Schumer, etc.,)
 
I was talking if one were involved in a scenario where the shooting was justified, an act of self defense. My question is really, what(if any) would be different if the person defending themselves had a stock Glock vs. a customized handgun? Now, I would intuitively think there would be no difference, as the handgun in question is NOT the issue, the crime is. Mike
 
Glad I don't live in PRK. Wonder what they would try to do to you if you had to defend yourself with your kids evil black metal baseball bat, modified with stickum to make it more deadly, that you deliberatly walked by the PC wooden bat,,,killer! Aaaack, Puke!

PRK and NY are running neck and neck for the *sshole of the universe award.
 
The fact is you may be marginally better off with a stock pistol so that the issue can't be used against you that you modified your pistol into a hair-trigger super-killer with a mind of its own.

We can't all live our lives according to the silliness that lawyers make up, though.

That said, I have smoothed and polished feed ramps and made seating adjustments, etc., to ensure reliability of defensive weapons. The only trigger I would work on is my target .22. The reason is that I would not trust trigger work on a defensive pistol to an amateur, which I am.

Regards,

Ledbetter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top