Punisher grips

[CaliforniaOutlaw2024]

Saw a reference to this and was puzzled. I can only presume it was a film prop. Didn't watch the film as typically 'redneck revenge' type films don't interest me. Somebody then informed me they were a type of grips for a semi-automatic pistol. Evidently there was some question about legality. Could someone please enlighten a novice who knows virtually zero regarding US gun laws as why the grips would be questioned? This may sound like a silly or stupid question for those in the know but as I have stated I am very ignorant when it comes to guns and/or all of the stuff that is associated with them.

 

[Varminterror]

In that specific case, the defense petitioned that images of the murderer's firearm (and without question, he was a murderer, as he bought a firearm to kill his wife, then drove to pick up said firearm DURING a conflict and then used said firearm to execute multiple people) should not be shown in court because the defense believed the appearance of the weapon could have influence on the jury - specifically, the Punisher logo grips. The prosecution agreed to withhold the images, but then later submitted the images.

The grips themselves are NOT demonstrated to be influential in the court decision, but rather the violation of the agreement between defense and prosecution may be grounds for dismissal, as evidence which was agreed to be inadmissible was in fact admitted, and the evidence just happens to be the particular image that the gun-owner/murderer's defense team felt might be influential, considering the vigilante/rogue nature of the murder's crimes.

I gotta ask though, you've been kicking around THR now for only ~2 weeks and you've started specific threads which have rang about a dozen bells for contentious positions regarding US firearms laws. Not necessarily innocuous individually, but your threads are really feeling pretty troll-ish when examined in whole.

 

[CaliforniaOutlaw2024]

In that specific case, the defense petitioned that images of the murderer's firearm (and without question, he was a murderer, as he bought a firearm to kill his wife, then drove to pick up said firearm DURING a conflict and then used said firearm to execute multiple people) should not be shown in court because the defense believed the appearance of the weapon could have influence on the jury - specifically, the Punisher logo grips. The prosecution agreed to withhold the images, but then later submitted the images.

The grips themselves are NOT demonstrated to be influential in the court decision, but rather the violation of the agreement between defense and prosecution may be grounds for dismissal, as evidence which was agreed to be inadmissible was in fact admitted, and the evidence just happens to be the particular image that the gun-owner/murderer's defense team felt might be influential, considering the vigilante/rogue nature of the murder's crimes.

I gotta ask though, you've been kicking around THR now for only ~2 weeks and you've started specific threads which have rang about a dozen bells for contentious positions regarding US firearms laws. Not necessarily innocuous individually, but your threads are really feeling pretty troll-ish when examined in whole.

not trying to troll anyone mate. just looking to yak about gun related topics many of which i find interesting.

 

[CDW4ME]

Put these on your 1911, so friendly and nice.

 

[rust collector]

OP, as noted previously the only legal issue with the grips bearing the "Punisher" design was a claimed violation of an agreement and/or order not to show them (usually a result of the court finding or likely to find that the prejudicial effect of showing them was likely to outweigh the probative effect).

There is no question that the grips so emblazoned are legal to use (aside from any trademark, copyright or IP issues), but legal and intelligent are by no means synonymous. A bit of thoughtful introspection should deter anyone who might use a gun in self-defense from marking the weapon in any manner proposing or promoting aggression.

 

[dh1633pm]

So I have to remove my grips?

 

[tarosean]

An actual lawyer chimes in.

Punisher Skulls are Dumb (Legally Speaking)

In this video, I dive into the case of State of Florida vs. Wong, a bizarre murder trial from my home state of Florida where Punisher skull grips became a fo...

youtu.be

 

[tommy.duncan]

Oh... Punisher... Comic book...
The grips on my SRH 454 Casull are very punishing!!

 

[The Night Rider]

I gotta ask though, you've been kicking around THR now for only ~2 weeks and you've started specific threads which have rang about a dozen bells for contentious positions regarding US firearms laws. Not necessarily innocuous individually, but your threads are really feeling pretty troll-ish when examined in whole.

So I'm not the only one that was thinking that huh?

 

[21H40]

So I'm not the only one that was thinking that huh?

Really? I never took you or @Varminterror for sensitive snowflakes, but I've been wrong about people before. Are you feeling triggered?
Dude is asking questions as if he is new to firearms, US gun laws, and US specific nuances about political issues.

@CaliforniaOutlaw2024 - You've seen the specific Punisher grip answers already, but the general principle that gets debated is whether or not statements (like online posts, public statements, text messages, or artistic decorations that advocate violence or hate) made before an "event" are important during a trial. The real answer seems to be "sometimes" those things matter, but sometimes they can't be used as evidence.

I've often heard it debated whether or not such statements can hurt you in court, but I've never heard anyone claim that they help. Never.

 

[Varminterror]

Dude is asking questions as if he is new to firearms, US gun laws, and US specific nuances about political issues.

Dude is asking loaded questions every day, about broadly disparate hot button topics - and ONLY posting about these hot topics. The odds that he has stumbled across these specific topics, and expressed interest in nothing else - and then taken the anti-gun perspective on every position - is pretty telling. This dude isn’t a new gun guy, naive to US laws, he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

There’s nothing “snowflake” when an American hears unconstitutional and oppressive language from a Brit and then tells them to pound sand.

 

[Hunter 08]

Dude is asking loaded questions every day, about broadly disparate hot button topics - and ONLY posting about these hot topics. The odds that he has stumbled across these specific topics, and expressed interest in nothing else - and then taken the anti-gun perspective on every position - is pretty telling. This dude isn’t a new gun guy, naive to US laws, he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

There’s nothing “snowflake” when an American hears unconstitutional and oppressive language from a Brit and then tells them to pound sand.

I've heard stuff like this get debated, never in court myself and I haven't asked a lawyer, but I have heard of people talking about the "optics" of stuff like that added to a firearm when it gets used in self defense or a crime. But these kinds of things should be asked with a lawyer who deals with firearms cases. But I have to agree, OP does post a lot of hot button topic stuff on here for one reason or another, that would probably be more suited in the echo chambers of Reddit or Quora.

 

[Varminterror]

I have heard of people talking

That's all it has ever been, so much to the point that even in the case being referenced in this thread, it remained only to be that - the defense was concerned it would be an issue, then negotiated a deal based on that unproven logic, which was broken by the prosecution, which has become the actual issue... Remaining, we still do not have actual case precedents which have ever looked at the "optics" as decisive, or even as influential in any case.

 

[Robert]

Just be careful what you do and what you post. If you ever find yourself in court, they will dig up everything they can to use against you.