I found a video blog by Dave Spaulding. The core of his message seems to be don’t worry about alteration to guns, especially cosmetic ones. While acknowledging that lawyers will attempt to use any flea bag excuse … I’m off on the wrong foot, let’s start over.
In court each lawyer presents to the jury their version of reality and the jury votes on which version they think represents reality. Will a silk screened image of a zombie having its brains blown out on your AR dust cover be a focal point of contention? Sure.
But any alteration can be used to support some outrageous claim. Red bumper pad? So you can find that ‘special, more punishing’ ammo quickly. Light on gun? So you can momentarily freeze him like a deer in the headlights to shoot him easier.
I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to come up with five more examples.
Dave’s point is don’t be afraid of making alterations to your gun, because the lawyers are going to screw with it anyway. At least I believe that is an accurate representation of the message.
My scoop is a little different. Make any alteration that you can explain as a safety feature.
The grip reduction? So you have better control and can shoot more accurately without endangering bystanders. The gun light? So you can clearly identify the threat you must stop to preserve you own life. I think you can see what I’m suggesting.
|Really?!? This is what you send your disposable income on?|
You want a punisher skull on your gun? Sure, just be prepared to explain it’s a sporting range gun that was the only weapon available when you were attacked. Engraved barrel with “Wait for Flash”? Same as before. It’s a special purpose gun and you had no other choice but to use it.
You may need to explain that a criminal finds his potential victim as he is and the victim may not have the opportunity to select the optimal defensive weapon.
Of course you can simplify the problem by avoiding gun alterations that can’t be easily explained as enhancing the safety or reliability of the weapon.