Pretty big takeaway for Noobiford McNoob here is that if you buy a base gun and upgrade over time (in order to spread the cost of those features out) that gun would best serve as your range/training gun. Then you save to buy the fully featured gun for carry.Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's
In my case, JXC9F21G initially and then JXC9GEL for realsies...
The quote above yours, is/was a point of contention I have with EL about the JXC9GEL. I brought it up in post number 4 and it was discussed in the thread by those as several missed it. In the first post he says something is listed as a competition part, and yet another part that is also listed as a competition part, is used in defense/production guns, such as the one you want and the PX4, .45.
From a potential juror, I would then see the competition part as inconsistent and moot.
Not sure I follow your reasoning exactly, but we could be in agreement here. If a part is in two guns--one sold as a "carry" gun and one sold as a "competition" gun--I believe we'll be just fine using the "carry" gun for self-defense, i.e., as it was designed and marketed.
Nissan puts the same 3.5L V-6 that's in my minivan in the Maxima SR. Despite sharing significant parts, the two vehicles were designed for very different applications.
Just as a data point, from my agency's perspective, any part/component/accessory that is labeled "COMPETITION" anywhere by the manufacturer is prohibited from duty use.
But, we allow Taurus personally owned weapons on duty, so...
By the way this is stated, it sounds like there might be at least one that does just that.
Get shit for carrying a round in the chamber? That's easy enough to explain. This is the same way that every LEO in the US carries their sidearms in order to be able to quickly respond to an emergency situation while maximizing their chance to survive, and end the situation as soon as possible. Ask the responding agency how they carry their handguns.
Every credible firearms instructor in the US teaches to carry with a round in the chamber.
A lot of the advice I'm seeing here is going to keep people from carrying a shootable weapon. Lot's of lack of confidence in the delivery of an explanation. I always carry a round in the chamber, I modify my guns as I see fit (sights and factory configurations for carry), and maybe it's because I've testified more than my fair share of times, but a lot of these "could be" situations shouldn't prevent you from carrying a competent defensive weapon.
I still have yet to hear anything that will get you snapped up in court for carrying a round in the chamber, changing factory configurations, adding aftermarket sights, and all of these basic things. I hate to break it to everyone, shooting someone is the most stressful part of this whole thing. The next is being grilled for actually fucking shooting someone. Gun modifications unless your gun says "You're fucked" or a punisher skull or any other morale thing that indicates the love of slaying bodies, isn't going to be a huge point here. A prosecutor is going to grill you on EVERYTHING. Your facebook, your personal life, if you've ever used a racial slur, if you've ever said you would kill someone, why you escalated to deadly force, has anyone in your family been convicted of a crime.........and so on. I get the idea of this thread is to mitigate variables, but you're worrying about a window switch on a car with a blown engine and transmission.
Your agency allows Taurus??? I'm guessing the gadget is a no go.
I'd disagree on a few things. One that the shooting itself is more stressful than the investigation that follows. LEOs often report the media attention and investigation are more stressful than the actual shooting. While everyone and each incident is different, that mirrors my recollection.
Also, the prosecutor is limited on what they can "grill" you on, as it must be relevant. Civil depositions, that's where things go off the rails.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I don't think anyone posting is actually advocating carrying without a round in the chamber, the point was simply made that it could be the subject of a question in some jurisdictions.
And there has been at least one expert posting in this thread with real world experience with court cases in which gun modifications were a factor. Why discount that expertise? I think the point is if a person plans to modify a gun that will be used for defensive purposes, it might be smart to limit the modifications to things that don't remove safety features, make the trigger lighter than factory spec, etc... -- especially in places where a CIVIL CASE may/will be brought.
Reply With Quote