Just curious on thoughts, but let’s say one was life was in danger and they had to use their firearm.
Would a jury judge more harshly for someone who used a “Hellcat”? Would they be more lenient on someone who used a “Shield”. Would they care less about G43X or P365?
I can’t imagine why it should, but I’m sure that it does. Still, the chances of someone being in front of a jury is really slim…so buy what you like. and if you buy one with a (now) offensive name, just rename it. Tell the jury that you renamed it Sarah becaasue it sounded nicer.
Will it matter? Maybe. Should it matter, probably not.
A good attorney will be able to (help you to) quickly address the reason you carry what you carry if it ever came to a trial.
It comes down to being able to articulate why you did what you did. For example, you carry a XYZ gun because you train frequently and are accurate with that gun. You can manipulate it safely and efficiently. It is comfortable for you to carry. It is an accurate, comfortable firearm with a solid reputation for reliability and safety.
If it’s a Hellcat that you’re comfortable and proficient with and decide to carry because of that criteria, the name has nothing to do with your decision to carry it.
Now if you wanted to carry it solely for its name, that may be a different discussion.
I mean, one could potentially carry a Hellcat with RIP ammo 
.
Juries love firearms!
If you’ve ever been on a jury where a firearm is entered as evidence and it’s brought to the jury room, people won’t be able to keep their hands off it 
Pray the bailiff makes sure it’s unloaded!
What if you named your firearms?
I am given to understand that there is no telling what any particular jury is going to care about. The model name of your gun may matter, or maybe it’s the caliber, or maybe the name of the ammo, or it could even be simply the physical size of the firearm.
The whole legal process is a crapshoot with too many variables for the outcome to be reliably predicted. That’s why it is so very important to not only be within the law, but also, to the greatest extent possible, within the standard of “reasonable and prudent”, whatever that happens to be that day.
That brings up the question, “What is prudent and reasonable in the eyes of the jury, judge and law?”
This is why you need an excellent attorney.
Which is why I pay for USCCA.
I’ll be paraphrasing here, “Deadly Force” Massad Ayoob , chapter 13, yes it will play a part, just like you speeding in your blood red Corvette Stingray versus your pink VW bug! Don’t even try to play the “fair” card. Justice is NOT BLIND, INNOCENCE DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE! Since the communists took control you are guilty until proven innocent! The best lawyer in the world will not be able to sway WOKE JURIES!
Wow… It must be a limited edition of “Deadly Force”…
Paraphrasing out of context, additional opinions added for clarification of paraphrasing, I’m learning from politicians how to speak non truth truths, in an effort to not get censored or flagged!
Very sensitive subject matter, guns and juries!
Personally I can not see any difference… but then… we are talking about people, and… . well I will reserve my opinion that far too many need a proctologist to have their head examined…
A Lincoln Towncar traveling at 100 mph… may not be viewed as harshly as a Corvette or Camaro going 100 mph.
Today… there is unfortunately a possibility a jury … or at least the prosecutor… will try to convince the jury… that if you used a ‘Hellcat’… you had evil intent…
And they may consider a ‘Shield’ as a defensive weapon …
Never thought of it… but that is a good question.
Sure… but honestly, fxck that. I have bigger worries. Besides I thought gun ownership was constitutionally protected and self defense was a natural right.
That may be true, but it doesn’t stop a prosecutor and jury from hanging you out to dry if you have to exercise that right.
A good question having no set answer. These terms are ambiguous and highly subjective. On the same day they may have wildly different interpretations depending on the venue, the makeup of the jury, the politics of the day, or any other variable. Not to mention that reasonableness and prudence may be at odds with each other in a given circumstance.
For instance, it is perfectly reasonable for a convenience store to charge inflated prices for basic food items compared to a grocery store, making it prudent for a consumer to shop at the grocery store. However, if the consumer has an immediate need for milk at home and the convenience store is the only place open, then it would be prudent to buy the milk there rather than wait for the grocery to open, or even to drive a significantly greater distance to a grocery.
More importantly, what matters is what the judge/jury thinks, or can be convinced to think, that matters at trial. You might even say that it is the defendant’s own beliefs about what is reasonable and prudent which are on trial since it can be argued that those beliefs are what led to the actions in question.
Clear as mud, right?
We can follow George Foreman’s lead.
Maybe call them all Harvey? Harvey seems nice. Harmless. A guy you might play cards or cribbage with.
I’m thinking John, like John the Baptist, baptizing the criminal by fire…