Court-proofing your firearm, have a look...it may influence your choices and give credence to the fact that your firearm can be held as evidence.
http://www.glockforum.com/Court-proofing-your-firearm-glock-forum.html (http://www.glockforum.com/Court-proofing-your-firearm-glock-forum.html)
This is why I stand by the advice...If it doesn't increase the shoot-ability of the platform, don't spend time or money on it. Even better, buy or build your gun with industry standard parts and dump money into ammo learning to shoot that gun.
Good article. Agencys require off duty firearms to be stock, no changes to trigger,barrel or reciever. i don't doubt that will not go against a CCW as well. Best keep it stock.
Dumb move to carry anything like that to begin with.
Intent is very easy to prove.
Actually intent is almost impossible to ascertain. It tends to be presumed with certain indicators, which results in it being functionally easy to prove.
A prosecutor looking to send you to jail will emphasize the added markings on the gun and a jury will use it against you.
I've also heard that it's not a good idea to use handloads/reloads in your carry gun for the same reason.
Quote from: Wolfie on September 23 2015 09:00:55 AM MDT
A prosecutor looking to send you to jail will emphasize the added markings on the gun and a jury will use it against you.
Hogwash. Every prosecutor is looking to send you to jail. They wouldn't bother, otherwise. Most jurors don't care what "markings" are on a gun. The ones who do, are probably in your favor.
Quote from: Yellow Jacket on September 29 2015 12:12:52 PM MDT
I've also heard that it's not a good idea to use handloads/reloads in your carry gun for the same reason.
Not long ago (a mere 25-30 years), the suggestion of using "hollow point bullets" was considered an act of horrific violence. Anyone who used them (including police), were terrorists! Unless you are already of questionable character, the prosecutor and/or jury won't care. Using standard components comparable to commercial cartridges isn't uncommon or unreasonable (the standard required of every juror). Economic expedience lends no weight to malicious intent. If you are a handloader, you probably practice mostly, or entirely, with handloads. Why would it seem more "sensible" or "reasonable" for a person to carry/use a lethal means of defense with which they are unfamiliar/unpracticed? Every coin has two sides, and a prosecutor will use the side that suits him/her.
They still believe that in N.J. Ball ammo unless a LEO in active status.