I think I’ve heard the answer to this by Tom Grieve but what modifications could look the worst in court after a self-defense incident?
If he or she is able to defend me and explain to jury that the modification saved life, didn’t kill.
At this moment, it’s about trigger modifications… not necessarily lightening, even things like increasing pull, changing from DA?SA to DA only, or even making aesthetic changes, i.e. swapping out a black trigger for a silver one.
I might also ask about hammer changes.
I guess another question for me would be, would a defense lawyer ever find that NOT addressing prosecution’s assertions in regards to details about the firearm might be preferred?
The triggers. I don’t want to lighten the pull, I’m just considering an Apex drop in to get rid of the hinged trigger.
Use of +1/+2/etc. magazine extensions, while still keeping within local laws on magazine capacity.
Is an actual attorney going to respond to these questions? Or was it just a hypothetical scenario?
I’m going to share them with Tom Grieve and see if we can get the “official answers”. The questions will also be added to the list of questions for him to use for different video segments.
Maybe a different approach, I’d love to know what gun modifications actually changed the outcome of a trial. So far I’ve heard a lot of internet opinions (not on this forum), but it’d be nice to hear from actual cases where modifications came into play and how that played out.
That would be cool @Sheepdog556
Would be nice to have these questions answered in this thread. I was just having a similar discussion with a firearms instructor I am friendly with. He says basically that legal use of force is legal no matter what you have modified on or inside the firearm. Which I agree with, to some degree. But my concern is at the (very) likely civil trial and how having mods to your EDC might affect that outcome. Staying out of jail is good. Having money to support your family is better.