Santa Clara County CCW Modified ok?

[Gawernator]

You are something alright.

The thing about civil law, is that it's less about being right; one only needs a preponderance of evidence. You should look that up on your next data dump from Claude or whatever AI tool you used on that long winded response. Because the AI response you cut/paste didn't give that enough weight. California has no statutory civil immunity for justified self-defense shootings. Like it or not, modifications are considered during discovery and used against you if they pass through protections like EC 352.

Your burden-of-proof point is obvious and does not answer the actual issue. Yes, civil plaintiffs can sue on a lower standard, and California does not provide broad civil immunity for every justified self-defense shooting. That still does not make a magazine disconnect legally significant by itself. The plaintiff still has to prove a real theory of liability, and punitive damages still require clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice under Civil Code section 3294. If the modification is not tied to negligence, causation, accidental discharge, or some other material issue, then it is just prejudicial garnish, and Evidence Code section 352 exists for exactly that problem.

Provide/cite CA court cases where the plaintiff was awarded damages because the firearm used in a justified legal self defense shooting did not contain a magazine disconnect. I'll wait.

You keep shifting from ‘it could be mentioned’ to ‘it matters legally.’ Those are different claims. Lots of things can be mentioned in discovery. The question is whether you can cite a California case where the absence of a magazine disconnect in a justified self-defense shooting actually moved liability or damages.

 

[Gawernator]

I think most answers are what happens after a shoot. I’m just asking if listing my 3 mag disco deleted pistols will get my CCW application approved or do they require completely stock?

They don't check, and if they have no written policy against it, then you are fine. Don't even bring it up.

This is "nuking it"

 

[cler1c]

They don't check, and if they have no written policy against it, then you are fine. Don't even bring it up.

This is "nuking it"

Thanks man

 

[Gawernator]

Thanks man

No problem. Any restrictions on your license have to be printed on the card by CA law

 

[Skilly]

Your burden-of-proof point is obvious and does not answer the actual issue. Yes, civil plaintiffs can sue on a lower standard, and California does not provide broad civil immunity for every justified self-defense shooting. That still does not make a magazine disconnect legally significant by itself. The plaintiff still has to prove a real theory of liability, and punitive damages still require clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice under Civil Code section 3294. If the modification is not tied to negligence, causation, accidental discharge, or some other material issue, then it is just prejudicial garnish, and Evidence Code section 352 exists for exactly that problem.

Provide/cite CA court cases where the plaintiff was awarded damages because the firearm used in a justified legal self defense shooting did not contain a magazine disconnect. I'll wait.

You keep shifting from ‘it could be mentioned’ to ‘it matters legally.’ Those are different claims. Lots of things can be mentioned in discovery. The question is whether you can cite a California case where the absence of a magazine disconnect in a justified self-defense shooting actually moved liability or damages.

Lets pull on that thread. First, CA doesn't provide ANY civil immunity. Like zero, so even in a perfectly clean response, expect it.

Second, Im not shifting. You are bananas as it relates to 'can you cite a case?'. Its missing the point entirely. To me, none of these modifications should move liability or prove intent. Most modifications to a skilled shooter are to make the EDC more safe. Its a stretch to me (and you clearly) that they contribute or show intent or anything else, but a skilled civil litigator will concoct as a story to expand damages with them. Couple that with the very low threshold of evidence in civil cases and you are exposed.

The reality is most of the people sitting in a jury box will not know that any modification does/does not make a gun or the shooter more lethal...think they know the difference between a magazine disconnect, LCI, or spring kit? These civil lawsuits have used the name of your ammo as evidence, let alone these benign modifications. Think of all the crappy laws we have in CA related to guns that passed through voting propositions. They weren't supported by responsible gun owners. They were put on the ballot using fear and positioning to the general public that knows little to nothing about guns or gun safety, let alone gun modifications.

 

[Gawernator]

Lets pull on that thread. First, CA doesn't provide ANY civil immunity. Like zero, so even in a perfectly clean response, expect it.

Second, Im not shifting. You are bananas as it relates to 'can you cite a case?'. Its missing the point entirely. To me, none of these modifications should move liability or prove intent. Most modifications to a skilled shooter are to make the EDC more safe. Its a stretch to me (and you clearly) that they contribute or show intent or anything else, but a skilled civil litigator will concoct as a story to expand damages with them. Couple that with the very low threshold of evidence in civil cases and you are exposed.

The reality is most of the people sitting in a jury box will not know that any modification does/does not make a gun or the shooter more lethal...think they know the difference between a magazine disconnect, LCI, or spring kit? These civil lawsuits have used the name of your ammo as evidence, let alone these benign modifications. Think of all the crappy laws we have in CA related to guns that passed through voting propositions. They weren't supported by responsible gun owners. They were put on the ballot using fear and positioning to the general public that knows little to nothing about guns or gun safety, let alone gun modifications.

Wait until they figure out my on-roster P2000SK didn't come with a MD!!!!!!!

 

[Skilly]

Wait until they figure out my on-roster P2000SK didn't come with a MD!!!!!!!

Something I learned loosely related... I PPT'd my very modified EDC X-Macro to a great guy on here. During the transfer, the modifications required it to be re-classified as an off-roster P365. Makes sense, but first time I had been a part of that real-time. In his case, he was in my county so no issues; however, if he's in a county that is strictly only allowing on-roster guns, it no longer qualifies as an EDC.