Gr935

I think you might be misunderstanding the original question. I am not aware of any cases but have been given legal advice that it’s not in my best interest to make any upgrades to my carry pistol. I am looking for actual cases that someone can provide to better understand where this advice is coming from to weigh the pros and cons, the risks of my decision.

I’ve always felt a good trigger is subjective. I have a variety of pistols and I can spend more time and money learning each one which negates a “bad” trigger but I’d rather spend those two resources on my kids. That’s why I look for a trigger that fits what I already know how to shoot. The trigger I like the most isn’t necessarily the trigger I shoot the best either.

My understanding is a quality kydex holster will prevent UID. So if a UID is the only concern with a modified trigger do you feel a SDS with a modified trigger would be a concern? I’m trying to find some live examples where precedent has been set. The origin of this fear that we have in NJ.

It just sounds to me like it’s a fear from attorneys because it makes their job harder. I have yet to hear if a live actual example where an outcome was dictated due to upgraded parts. I hope someone chimes in to correct me or clarify.

I’m wondering if a prosecutor would treat an optic as an upgrade.

You are correct. I learned to shoot and have been shooting my Glock 19 for a very long time. I have other pistols with far more refined triggers but I shoot this one better just due to the time and rounds I’ve put through it. I picked up a 48 and the trigger is nothing like my 19. Hoping someone has some insight.

Has anyone else been advised that upgrading a pistol that is then used in self defense is a bad idea from a legal defense standpoint? I’ve been advised multiple times of this which doesn’t make any sense. If true, can someone please explain where it comes from?