Rick_A
Member
Probably partly depends on what state you're in.
Gun Trigger Modifications a No Go According to Article
- Thread starter marathonrunner
- Start date
gunfighter48
US Veteran
I started reading gun mags in 1962, I was 14 at the time. This same BS about modified guns and triggers was a hot topic in those days. But no one as far as I can remember ever brought forth a legal case where someone was convicted on the basis of gun mods!!!!!! You can play at what if's forever but as far as I know no one has ever been convicted because of gun modifications for a justified self defense shooting. After 50 years it's time to bury this dead horse!!!!!
Badkarma 1
US Veteran
AYE! If (God forbid) you get into a shooting make sure you get a lawyer that is gun savvy and will keep the trial on track about the shooting and not the piece in question!
Having picked the brains of several retired Cops on the subject that's the advice I got.
And if you get your weapon modified keep the reciept and make sure its a "name" smith who will testify if necessary.
Dale
Also because everyone's temporarily spent from the latest (about every month) round of beating these dead horses in this (still running) thread: http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...er-modifications-no-go-according-article.htmlNo one's answering because it's not.
NCW Ray
Member
I would be more concerned about how competent my attorney is at refuting the prosecutions claims of such nonsense and making the jurors believe it is in fact nonsense...IF such nonsense is brought up.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,785
- Reaction score
- 7,204
About the magazine safety thing......I've been issued sidearms with magazine safeties since 1992. After watching litterally over a million rounds go down range, I find the fuss about them much ado about nothing. I won't go into dreary detail on that, there's a lengthy thread on the old Amback Forum about that one too in....... October, 2006?
If you don't want one, don't buy a gun with one.
If you don't want one, don't buy a gun with one.
I agree this is a well worn path. That said, just because there's never been a documented case regarding gun mods or ammo doesn't mean there never will be. Think the other side doesn't read these articles or forums like this? Do what you think is right. Me? My EDC's are all factory stock and loaded with commercial ammo.
I'll just say this about that.
With my peripheral neuropathy, if I hadn't have modified the trigger on my carry snubby, the broadsides of barns'd be safe.
With my peripheral neuropathy, if I hadn't have modified the trigger on my carry snubby, the broadsides of barns'd be safe.
This is one hill I would not like to climb b/c you never know how a local prosecutor will come at you. Toward that end my self defense guns are all factory stock w/the exception of the grips and some sight paint. Carry ammo is FBI +P factory and is carried b/c of my street experience as a cop.
Remember.
In Lawyering-101, they learn a basic tactic: if the evidence is weak, attack the evidence. If the evidence is strong, attack the witness.
It is in the latter case that your opposition might grab at straws to win their case by trying to impeach your character. But, as others have said here, I too am not aware of a case in which a trigger modification or hand loaded ammunition even entered into a case.
However, I believe it was Massad Ayoob (I readily admit that I could be wrong, here) who described a case in which an individual used a magnum revolver of some sort. Attorneys for the other side kept referring to the gun as the magnum, purposely mispronouncing the word as "maaa-gnuumm," in an effort to influence the jury against the defendant. At the risk of a bit of thread drift, this was a matter of trying to convince the jury that deadly force, generally thought of as an absolute, does indeed come in degrees and it is better to kill someone a little bit than too much.
In Lawyering-101, they learn a basic tactic: if the evidence is weak, attack the evidence. If the evidence is strong, attack the witness.
It is in the latter case that your opposition might grab at straws to win their case by trying to impeach your character. But, as others have said here, I too am not aware of a case in which a trigger modification or hand loaded ammunition even entered into a case.
However, I believe it was Massad Ayoob (I readily admit that I could be wrong, here) who described a case in which an individual used a magnum revolver of some sort. Attorneys for the other side kept referring to the gun as the magnum, purposely mispronouncing the word as "maaa-gnuumm," in an effort to influence the jury against the defendant. At the risk of a bit of thread drift, this was a matter of trying to convince the jury that deadly force, generally thought of as an absolute, does indeed come in degrees and it is better to kill someone a little bit than too much.
southcoast
Member
You are more likely to be aboard a commercial flight which disappears without a trace than to have this issue bear any legal relevance in your life.
Rastoff
US Veteran
No need to hope, he's right. Search the web all you want, but you won't find a single case where a gun modification, any gun modification, has played a significant role in sending a person, who was legitimately defending themselves, to prison.
The point that few talk about is accuracy. If modifying the trigger helps you be more accurate, it's probably better to do the modification. There are plenty of cases where a defender was sent to prison because he hit an innocent while trying to defend himself.
So, it's better to hit the intended target. If a modified trigger helps you do that, isn't that the better way to go?
CatSnipah
Member
Yes.
Additionally, it's becoming more frequent for prosecutors to at least bring it up as "evidence" that a shooter was of the mindset that they intended to use it to shoot someone.
A weak minded or favorable jury may sympathize.
Not everyone will. And you will still be alive. So it's something to at least consider.
NCW Ray
Member
As I've stated before:
I would be more concerned about how competent my attorney is at refuting the prosecutions claims of such nonsense and making the jurors believe it is nonsense...IF such nonsense is brought up.
I would be more concerned about how competent my attorney is at refuting the prosecutions claims of such nonsense and making the jurors believe it is nonsense...IF such nonsense is brought up.
The prosecutor shouldn't have to bring it up. If I'm carrying a firearm, I do intend to shoot someone if they put me in immediate fear of serious bodily injury or death and I have no other option at my disposal. That is the only, single, sole, lone reason for carrying a self defense firearm.
Are there?
CatSnipah
Member
I understand your point, but don't miss mine with your bravado. It's one thing to defend yourself, and another to have a hunter mentality. That is what a prosecutor will do if he/she/it takes this path...make you seem like you had intent to kill someone despite self defense situations.
Just look at how ridiculous these frivolous law suits have become...people breaking their leg robbing a house, suing the home owner and winning.
Absurd.
Rastoff
US Veteran
Well, maybe not. I may have been a little hasty in that assertion.
At least in CA you may be held liable for every round that comes out of your gun. Shoot the bad guy while he's trying to rape someone and accidentally shoot the victim as well, she can hold you liable. Miss the bad guy and hit a 3 year old and you may be held liable for the death of that 3 year old.
However, there is an aspect of common law called "Accidental Killing." I found this:
Accidental Killing legal definition of Accidental Killing
So, it seems that a person might not be held guilty if they were indeed defending themselves legally. Still, I'd rather not go to court over that. I still maintain that it's better to use the gun that you're most capable of hitting the target with.
I wrote a long answer to this question recently. Let's see if I can find it.
Found it - instead of repeating it here I will refer you to this thread; my reply is number 10 I believe:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...zens-legal-defense-network.html#post138191282
Massad Ayoob does tell that story but as I recall he also tells a story about a defendant who owned a Colt Cobra and the prosecutor kept emphasizing COBRA, until the defense destroyed the foolishness by getting testimony that the gun was named by Colt and was not used in the incident being prosecuted.
You can attack evidence or you can attack the witness/defendant but if the testimony and evidence support the fact that the defendant was in fear for his life he will be no-billed/dismissed/found not guilty. It will cost thousands of dollars to get there but that will be the result barring extraneous evidence that tends to militate against self defense.
If you need a lighter trigger then get a lighter trigger. If it makes you a better shooter so be it. If you need better sights then get better sights. If it makes you a better shooter so be it
Let me tell you what you do NOT need.
You do NOT need to use handloads for self defense. It's risky from the sense of performance against the virtual infallibility or factory ammunition and it does give a prosecutor the ability to ask questions that otherwise make no sense. You want to be able to justify commercial hollow point cartridges because of their effectiveness in stopping an attack and that they'll fail to penetrate and go as far as FMJ ammunition after passing through someone. You don't want to have to justify your home made "killer ammunition". For hunting, whatever, I don't care. For any kind of competition, whatever, I don't care. Don't give "ammunition" to a prosecutor by loading your defense weapons with home made cartridges. That's just asking for a withering cross examination.
You do NOT need to disable a mandated safety device. However, mandated is such a bad word - mandated by whom? If a safety device like a magazine disconnect is mandated by law (maybe there is such a law but I never heard of it) then you're starting off your self defense story on the wrong foot because you're already a criminal, you violated the law. But if it's a safety device that a manufacturer put into a pistol then disabling it has a much different effect.
You have to consider the possibility that the safety device being removed might be far more detrimental to your life than leaving it in. Do you really expect to be in a confrontation where you're going to drop your magazine out of your pistol and that one last shot is going to save you? That happens in books and movies. If you're that disturbed by a magazine disconnect then buy a self defense pistol that doesn't have one. It's that simple.
Disabling a magazine disconnect is far more likely to lead to an accidental discharge than saving your life.
Disabling the internal lock on a S&W revolver is different. I don't do it but that's not a safety device with respect to shooting, that's a safety device with respect to storage.
I reiterate what I said in the other thread - a "righteous shoot" to use an LEO term, is just that, a righteous shoot, and worrying about triggers and sights and ammunition is simply not your biggest problem. Justifiable homicide sends you home - keep it justifiable and your triggers and sights and stocks (we all play with stocks!!) won't matter.
***GRJ***
Found it - instead of repeating it here I will refer you to this thread; my reply is number 10 I believe:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...zens-legal-defense-network.html#post138191282
Massad Ayoob does tell that story but as I recall he also tells a story about a defendant who owned a Colt Cobra and the prosecutor kept emphasizing COBRA, until the defense destroyed the foolishness by getting testimony that the gun was named by Colt and was not used in the incident being prosecuted.
You can attack evidence or you can attack the witness/defendant but if the testimony and evidence support the fact that the defendant was in fear for his life he will be no-billed/dismissed/found not guilty. It will cost thousands of dollars to get there but that will be the result barring extraneous evidence that tends to militate against self defense.
If you need a lighter trigger then get a lighter trigger. If it makes you a better shooter so be it. If you need better sights then get better sights. If it makes you a better shooter so be it
Let me tell you what you do NOT need.
You do NOT need to use handloads for self defense. It's risky from the sense of performance against the virtual infallibility or factory ammunition and it does give a prosecutor the ability to ask questions that otherwise make no sense. You want to be able to justify commercial hollow point cartridges because of their effectiveness in stopping an attack and that they'll fail to penetrate and go as far as FMJ ammunition after passing through someone. You don't want to have to justify your home made "killer ammunition". For hunting, whatever, I don't care. For any kind of competition, whatever, I don't care. Don't give "ammunition" to a prosecutor by loading your defense weapons with home made cartridges. That's just asking for a withering cross examination.
You do NOT need to disable a mandated safety device. However, mandated is such a bad word - mandated by whom? If a safety device like a magazine disconnect is mandated by law (maybe there is such a law but I never heard of it) then you're starting off your self defense story on the wrong foot because you're already a criminal, you violated the law. But if it's a safety device that a manufacturer put into a pistol then disabling it has a much different effect.
You have to consider the possibility that the safety device being removed might be far more detrimental to your life than leaving it in. Do you really expect to be in a confrontation where you're going to drop your magazine out of your pistol and that one last shot is going to save you? That happens in books and movies. If you're that disturbed by a magazine disconnect then buy a self defense pistol that doesn't have one. It's that simple.
Disabling a magazine disconnect is far more likely to lead to an accidental discharge than saving your life.
Disabling the internal lock on a S&W revolver is different. I don't do it but that's not a safety device with respect to shooting, that's a safety device with respect to storage.
I reiterate what I said in the other thread - a "righteous shoot" to use an LEO term, is just that, a righteous shoot, and worrying about triggers and sights and ammunition is simply not your biggest problem. Justifiable homicide sends you home - keep it justifiable and your triggers and sights and stocks (we all play with stocks!!) won't matter.
***GRJ***
Last edited:
gwpercle
Member
Lawyers looking to get their guilty clients off with any trumped up excuse so the good guy becomes the bad guy, then their guy is the new "victim".
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
My little secret shared in getting the attention of a CEO of a large Company- Latest: robertrwalsh
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Forgive me, I've requested a letter from Colt.
- Latest: Mike SC Hunter
-
-
