gun modification

Question
We have all been involved in the modify/don't modify your self defense/CCW gun at one point or another.  Is there any links or court cases specifically related to someone being in trouble for using a modified pistol in a shooting?  Thanks for your time, and attention.  

Answer
FOLLOW UP TO THIS:

Correction.  The case I mentioned was an accidental shooting.  The prosecutor set out to show that even though the death weapon was not the Hi-Power, because the Hi-Power had had its magazine safety disabled and was kept as a self-defense gun, that the shooter had a history of recklesness/

GCH

Jamie,

You raise an excellent question. The undisputed compiler of such information is Massad Ayoob.  If you google his name, you should find information on specific cases.  In general, however, you should expect that if you are involved in a legitimate self-defense shooting, but the prosecutor decides to persecute (pun intended), he is going to look for anything he might be able to use to fool a jury and hang you.  Likewise, when (not if) you are sued civilly by the perpetrator or his next-of-kin, they will try to seize on any modifications you may have made.  Not all modifications are a problem for a for a competent attorney, but I would look at modifications in three categories:

1) Legally irrelevant modifications.  These are modifications such as changing sights, grips, guide-rods, gun finishes, adding checkering, etc.  These are preferences, but do nothing to alter the functionality of the gun. Don抰 be surprised if some attorney does try to seize on these, but unless he抯 really good, and/or your attorney is really bad, he抯 going to end up making a fool out of himself in court if he does.

2)  Legally defensible modifications.  These would include any internal action work, including smoothing the trigger pull, modifications to hammers so they don抰 揵ite?you.  The trigger could even be lightened from factory configuration, though I would not recommend less than 4.5 ?5 lbs.  In this case, you will likely need expert testimony to establish that the mods did either did not detract from the safety of the gun, or materially improved it.  A case can me made for the controllability of a gun with a trigger that has been lightened to 5 lbs.  Likewise, if you render a carry revolver double action only (so it can抰 be cocked and fired), you will take away an attorney抯 suggestion that you had previously cocked the gun and had a 揾air trigger.?br>
3)  Legally liable modifications.  These would include triggers under 4.5 lbs.  The prosecutor/litigator will be able to produce reams of documentation from nationally known gunsmiths (e.g. Bill Laughridge, Wayne Novak) and nationally known firearms trainers (e.g. Ayoob) that triggers that are lighter than this are unsuitable for a carry, duty, or self-defense gun.  

Another liable modification is the disabling of any safety device on the gun.  This goes even for safeties that really do nothing to increase safety.  Some time ago there was a case in which a man was found negligent because a safety had been disabled on a gun that WAS NOT EVEN THE SELF DEFENSE GUN.  As I recall, the man defended himself with a 1911, but he kept a Browning Hi-Power in the car for self defense, and this gun had had the magazine safety disabled (the magazine safety was not even a part of the original design of the gun).  This gun was taken into evidence, the prosecutor used the gun to show that this man was the kind of man who make reckless modifications to guns used for self-defense by disabling their safety devices.

Mas Ayoob documented this in the Feb. 2006 issue Combat Handguns (揗istakes That Can Hang You??if you can find this article, I think it will be helpful to you).  I emailed him with the following:

揧ou mention a case in which a Browning Hi-Power proved a legal liability because of having its magazine safety deactivated. Couldn抰 [Mark] Seiden [the defense attorney] have argued that the magazine safety is for the operator抯 safety?  There are many documented accounts of police officers who, knowing they were about to lose their guns to an assailant, jettisoned the magazine, rendering it unable to fire, and thereby keeping themselves from being killed with their own gun. Surely, it would not be hard to establish that this is the purpose of the magazine safety.  There is some question whether this is a good or a bad thing, since many handguns can be fired without a magazine by design.  Whether one is courting danger by disabling a magazine safety is debatable, but even if one is, he is jeopardizing only his own safety. Your comments as to whether this might be a good defense would be appreciated.?br>
Mas wrote back,

揘o argument here. The point in Mark's case was that the prosecution did in fact attempt to make the deactivation of this particular safety device an issue.  Your argument is a sound one, but it flies better with those of us who know guns than it will with a jury selected by the other side expressly for their lack of knowledge of firearms.  That's why it's better to avoid the issue altogether.?br>