Curious about an issue

We have talked the issue of the upsides and the downsides of modifications to our CC firearms to death :skull_and_crossbones::skull:. Specifically, using a modified firearm in self defense. I was sitting here thinking deep thoughts (like you do). Thinking about how Prosecutors will argue how FMJ is a “cop killer” round or how hollow point rounds are meant to maximize lethality.

It made me curious enough to start thinking about my self defense membership benefits with the USCCA. How the fact of me having a self defense benefit could be used against me? I can wrap my mind around the argument and how it would be argued by a Prosecutor. Do you think it would be used that way?

Just idle thoughts.

p.s. No intentions on giving up my Self Defense benefit.


Tom Grieve has, somewhere in one of the videos with him and Kevin, been posed that question.

His answer is that he would love for the prosecution to open the door into talking about the personal non-required time and effort put into education and training and being responsible.


Anything can be used against us. That is why I don’t modify my firearm especially my EDC. My EDC is stock right out of the box. Yes and a prosecutor can say that you purchased self defense insurance because you intended to use your firearm in self defense. I consider self defense insurance just like a fireman, it’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.


Isn’t that why we have a SELF defense firearm?


I never intend on using my firearms against another, unless absolutely necessary! I do intend on using a lawyer that is armed to the teeth in the justice system. The intent of the insurance is to be able to afford such a defense, god forbid, I ever need such ammunition!
I consider USCCA a life modification. FYI as @Johnnyq60 says right out of the box. I would hope that adding better grips to mine equals better control over my firearm. I let my lawyer speak to that.

I don’t think it matters anymore, if we used marshmallows to defend ourselves, they will still prosecute and I would still by marshmallow insurance.


Might be semantics might be important distinction, but we have and maybe carry a self defense firearm, as well as other self defense tools (pepper spray, mindset, skills, etc), just in case we are unable to avoid a situation and must resort to actively defending ourselves or another


Nonetheless, you still intend to use it if you need it.

(You think this is splitting hairs you haven’t been cross examined on a witness stand.)



Which is where it’s maybe semantics and maybe important. Intend to use it if needed

That may or may not be very different from intending to use.

Playing lawyer (which I am NOT) I would say that I intend to never need to use a firearm defensively, that is my intention. But, just in case, if necessary

And yes I am aware of cross exam (not personally lol) which is where I say it’s maybe not a small thing, maybe a big thing, to say that the intention is not to use it, but to have it just in case

I carry it in case I need it, but needing it is not my intention at all

I only buy top safety pick rated cars but I sure as hell don’t intend to need that either lol


My philosophy of use is I purchased one of the best ( in my opinion) pistol for self defense the staccato c2 no optics cut no insignia just the pistol no extra umph because if I have to give my pistol up for several days while things get sorted I wanted to let them see the care and condition of the implement and also the respect I have for life itself to not disrespect a human being by using some exotic weapon made to take down game desert eagle , bruno , 5.7x39 and a couple more my function is to stop an attacker not out and out kill him and do within my power everything to keep the individual alive until first responders get there


The case I sat on the jury for. I think they said 9mm handgun once, the gun was never located. They never referred to ammunition even though they had and showed us pictures of two obviously expanded hollow point bullets laying next to the guy that got shot. What they did focus on was “8 Rounds”, “You clearly heard the gun fire 8 times”, “he was shot at least 5 times”. Again I’ll say, it wasn’t so much what the lawyers said during the trial as it was what the witness’s said that influenced the jury. Also, many of the jury members were completely ignorant to firearms, had never shot one, had never even held one, that’s who has your nuts in the palm of their hands.


You make a valid point. If you got a judge that was trying to run for a political office and was trying to promote himself as anti gun. In which case you would be considered guilty and have to prove your innocence. Hopefully your lawyer would be able to convince them you are anti criminal gun violence.


I haven’t thought about that aspect too much because in CA, we’re required to have auto insurance and there is now a trend of different cities requiring gun owners to have some type of liability insurance. The various elected officials have established the legal precedent that different types of “just in case” insurance are no longer optional, but required by law. So even if it’s not required in my specific region of the state, I’m still just following the same philosophy that has been established by my elected overlords. Who am I to question their superior intellect?


When I have engaged in serious conversations regard the matter of intent associated with firearm ownership/carry, my usual response is along these lines:

I don’t intend to have a grease fire in my kitchen, but I have a fire extinguisher. I don’t intend for anyone in my home to suffer a serious injury, but I keep a well-stocked first aid kit in a closet. I don’t intend to have an auto accident, but I maintain an auto insurance policy. I have all these things not because I intend to use them, but because I understand that despite my best efforts bad things can happen. It’s better to be prepared to respond to these bad situations than to be helpless when they do occur.

My firearm, much like a fire extinguisher or first aid kit, is a tool of last resort to be employed in defense of life when all other options have failed. As such I keep it, and all my tools, in good working order. I have also engaged in enough training and practice to achieve a level of competence with each of them so that I understand when, why, and how to use them appropriately and effectively.

I have never intended to use my firearm against another human being, but I understand that I can go about my daily life prudently and with due caution and still encounter a person who is intent on causing harm to me or my family. I haven’t acquired any of these tools with the intent to be in a situation to use them, but I understand that I may fall victim to circumstances beyond my control which may force me to use these tools in defense of myself and loved ones.


This is the game… unfortunately we are not the players. Whatever we do, even the proper way (training, practice, the best firearm, great ammo) may and will be used against us.
You may expect accusations like:

  • you trained, took the classes , spent hundred hours on the range to make yourself better killer
  • you bought this particular firearm to kill faster
  • you used red dot to kill easier
  • you joined USCCA or any other Organization to have support for your killing actions

you may probably find more examples of such stupid arguments.

What we need is just a good legal team and team players to nicely turn those false accusation against prosecution.

There is nothing to worry about if you are confident about your every action.


So, you have USCCA? Were you looking forward to the day when you can act like Dirty Harry and be judge, jury and executionerrrrrr?

All analogies ultimately fail.

Callahan’s a cop. I’m not. :man_shrugging:t4:


I’ve heard from a lawyer on tik tok going on in a litigation with an insurance company, that part of the rules with his case was he’s not allowed to mention the insurance company to the jury, they’re not to tell them what happened afterward, just the accident itself.

But that’s a civil litigation, in a court room arguing who’s at fault.

So my guess is when meeting with an attorney to represent you in criminal court, ask him to see if they could add rules to the case where the jury doesn’t know who’s handling the business end of your attorney.


I believe that my chosen defense attorney will blow that argument out of the water. It all boils down to this; did I believe that my life was in such immediate danger that I had no other choice for self defense than my firearm & can my attorney convince a jury of this.


Well, there’s your problem with credibility right there.


A good defense attorney could turn all of those accusations around or nullify them I suspect:

  1. The defendant had insurance in case of the use of self defense, just like one has replacement cost on homeowners insurance
  2. The defendant learned in training how to stay calm in the decision making process of whether or not to draw and shoot. 3) The defendant trained how to shoot under a stressful situation to avoid shooting bystanders
  3. the defendant trained to avoid this situation if at all possible.

However an attorney may object to the accusations as well. In Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial it was never argued that he “shouldn’t have been there.”


In Utah law it’s pretty clear. It’s not an issue If I’m not breaking the law by being there.

(4) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(a)(iii):
(a) an individual does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (2) in a place where that individual has lawfully entered or remained; and
(b) the failure of an individual to retreat under the provisions of Subsection (4)(a) is not a relevant factor in determining whether the individual who used or threatened force acted reasonably.