Yup. Too many have blind veneration to the guy
Legal issues to consider regarding gun mod's for carry weapons.
- Thread starter CaptRon956
- Start date
- Status
I and others will say "absolutely." Others will say "maybe, but remember that makes it look military, so . . . . "
CTI1USNRET
Member
I think Ayoob is wrong in this case. If deadly force is justified, the use of a modified gun, a light trigger, handloaded ammo, is moot.
If any of the above ever came up in a court of law, and not just in someone's imagination, we'd all be passing around references to specific court cases to make our point.
Does anyone have a specific court case?
If any of the above ever came up in a court of law, and not just in someone's imagination, we'd all be passing around references to specific court cases to make our point.
Does anyone have a specific court case?
Haha. I didnt even think of it that way, i just like that color. Im guessing pink red or purple could also be used as "the defendent acts like this is a toy" oh the possibilities. I think im going to cerakote it.
walkin' trails
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,372
- Reaction score
- 824
I've chimed in before on this issue taking the side of not modifying the internal actions of carry guns. My concern has not been so much how a jury would react and decide based upon learning I had lightened the trigger pull or using my own homemade defense loads; my concern is with a local prosecutor or someone else in the system early in who has the power or influence as to whether or not I have to go to trial. In Zimmerman, it wasn't the incident or his statements to police that got him charged. It was an edited 911 tape and political pressure that got him thrown into the fire. Taking that theme, imagine a local prosecutor with greater political aspirations. He perks up when he hears a comment about an aftermarket trigger that has dropped the Shield's trigger pull down to five pounds from the original 6.5. He takes other factors that otherwise have no bearing and decides to spin them against the law abiding citizen forced to defend him/herself because the exposure might get him noticed by the local political machune. Then the citizen's ordeal really begins. Fortunately there are good attorneys and expert witnesses like Massad Ayoob who's testimony may likely have a positive effect on your case. But the whole point I'm making is why tempt fate that way in the first place. Especially when experts like Ayoob have warned ahead of time what might happen. I'm not trying to play kill-joy, but as in Zimmerman, there are enough things to worry about. Zimmerman's pistol wasn't at issue, but imagine if his trigger press weight had noticibly need reduced? The press would have had a big score with that tidbit, as well as the prosecution. They were trying to make him out to be a vigilante and a wannabe cop as it was. That might have swung the pendulum the other way. I recall that some members of his jury still felt like the reason of law did not mesh with their Hollywood-Educated hearts even though they sided with the defendent based on the elements presented. Anyway, I understand that most accepted gun modifications are judged by what is considered industry standard, e.g. 4-5lb triggers in 1911s, 5.5s in Glocks, etc. When S&W makes Apex components part of their factory authorized offerings, then that burden may be lifted. Until then, apply judicious amounts of dry fire to your training curriculum so that you master the feel of that 6.5lb factory trigger.
Last edited:
Here is where people contradict themselves. They say most self defense situations happen in a matter of seconds and within 7 yards. Yet they want to lighten the trigger for accuracy.
Maybe im getting on a high horse, but at that range 1.5lbs of trigger pull isnt exactly going to make you anymore accurate as needed for your SD situation. The heart and head are too big at that range to miss.
Maybe im getting on a high horse, but at that range 1.5lbs of trigger pull isnt exactly going to make you anymore accurate as needed for your SD situation. The heart and head are too big at that range to miss.
Massad Ayoob
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 585
In case nobody noticed, the link provided in the OP brings you to a discussion in which attorneys Manny Kapelsohn and Jim Fleming discuss several cases relevant to this discussion. One of Manny's is one I also worked on, NY v. Frank Magliato. A search here at this forum will turn up multiple discussions.
For a classic case of "hair trigger" being an issue in an intentional self-defense shooting, look up FL v. Luis Alvarez. The officer intentionally fired when the suspect went for a gun, saving his own and his rookie partner's life, but Janet Reno's office crafted a fantasy case in which he had cocked his gun to hair trigger status and accidentally killed the deceased. It took eight or nine weeks of trial to win a not guilty verdict.
Seems to me that the brick of .22 should go to the original poster, CaptRon956, whose link was there right from the starting gate in Post #1.
Massad Ayoob
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 585
Muss Muggins, your link should be taken in context with this:
The Gun Zone -- Mas Ayoob Responds .
In the future, you might want to do a bit of research before throwing mud on fellow forum members.
Pointing out a different opinion is not throwing mud, IMHO. I made no unwarranted accusations, I just linked an article. I appreciate your response, including the link to the Gun Zone article, which I had previously read. I'm sure the forum members will find it valuable. Clearly there are differing views of this issue.
Stay Safe . . .
Last edited:
southcoast
Member
These two cases are misrepresented almost as often as this issue comes up. In both cases the defendants claimed the shootings were unintentional. They both pointed firearms at someone and claimed they unintentionally pulled the trigger when the law said they were not justified in doing so. That is the crux of their problems. This aside from the fact that these were law enforcement officers rather than carry concealed self defense situation.
Is this the best we get?
22lr still available.
Last edited:
Massad Ayoob
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 585
Magliato discharged his cocked Detective Special unintentionally (in a moment when I and many others think he should have fired intentionally).
In the second case: It was made abundantly clear in the Alvarez trial that while the officer had blurted "someone bumped my arm and the gun went off" in the moments immediately after the shooting, before even leaving the scene Alvarez explained that he had in fact fired his S&W Model 64 intentionally, and in double action.
I discussed the incident in depth with Magliato and both his lawyers, and Alvarez and both of his attorneys. One of the latter, the legendary Roy Black, devoted much of his autobiography "Black's Law" to the Alvarez case. It's available at most libraries and should be read by anyone seriously interested in the issues in the case.
In the second case: It was made abundantly clear in the Alvarez trial that while the officer had blurted "someone bumped my arm and the gun went off" in the moments immediately after the shooting, before even leaving the scene Alvarez explained that he had in fact fired his S&W Model 64 intentionally, and in double action.
I discussed the incident in depth with Magliato and both his lawyers, and Alvarez and both of his attorneys. One of the latter, the legendary Roy Black, devoted much of his autobiography "Black's Law" to the Alvarez case. It's available at most libraries and should be read by anyone seriously interested in the issues in the case.
southcoast
Member
The officers were the ones who fired the weapons. Both legal teams represented to the courts the shootings were unintentional. There whole legal defenses through the duration of trial were based on unintentional discharges. What anyone else may believe or claimed after the fact is not dispositive.
As stated before these cases are also law enforcement officers, and not concealed carry self defense shootings as brought up by the OP. I still stand by my statement there is no case where a modified trigger on carry concealed weapon intentionally fired under a justified self defense situation became legally relevant.
The brick of 22lr eagerly awaits a case site showing otherwise.
Seven3
Member
I haven't weighed in on this because I didn't think I had anything to add that had not already been said, but I have to concur with "southcoast." I'm not a firearms expert, but I am a lawyer with Westlaw access, and I can't find a case where a modified trigger was an issue in a shooting involving a civilian lawfully carrying a concealed handgun. Disappointing, because I really wanted a brick of .22.
As a refresher . . .
Massad Ayoob
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 585
I'm afraid you haven't done your homework. Magliato was an armed citizen carrying on a permit, not a police officer. Anyone who wants to bother finding the facts will quickly discover that attorneys Roy Black and Mark Seiden not only represented to the Court that Alvarez fired intentionally, double action, in defense of himself and his partner, but Alvarez testified to the same, and the jury (which, unlike you, heard the evidence) totally acquitted him.
bhayles
Member
Passed by in most of this thread, and not addressed in the above quote, is something that may (likely is?) have happened in any number of cases but is not provable....
That thefact that a weapon has been modified in some way, like a lightened trigger, was the, or one of the,reasons a prosecutor due to any number of reasons like being anti-gun, wanting scalps to help him win the next election, etc, made the decision to seek a warrant or take the case to a grand jury, in part, because he/she thought said "tampering with the gun to make it have a hair trigger" (in his mind) would help him, the prosecutor, make his case...yet never used it at trial...so no cites would exist.
Do I believe this has happened? I have no way of knowing. Do I think it could happen? Damn right.
If I ever have to use my gun to defend myself or others, I want it to end there...before a decision is made to file charges, before the case is ever seen by a judge or grand jury, before anything else happens, period.
I want to be told, "Bob, it sucke that you had to shoot someone, but you did everything right, considering the whole situation, and you did nothing wrong. Go home to your family."
I want to give a prosecutor absolutely nothing...nothing...that might make him think otherwise, even for a second.
Can I hand a prosecutor a perfectly clean case if it ever happens? Doubtful...but the things I can control, like this, I will.
Crisp trigger with a clean break? Yes. Lightened trigger? No.
cmort666
Member
Then I have one word for you:
SUBMIT
ANY resistance of ANY kind that harms the aggressor in ANY way could be used by a clone of Mike Nifong.
If you're more concerned about being prosecuted for legitimate self-defense than you are about being maimed or murdered then you should just throw yourself on the "mercy" of the person threatening, indeed TRYING to kill you. In that way you will occupy the "moral high ground"... even if it's indicated by a headstone with your name on it...
The officer fired, not the citizen. The point of this thread is whether or not a private citizen has been prosecuted due to, in part, a hair trigger/trigger/firearm modification. Officers enjoy protections that citizens do not. The fact that the victim was a CCW holder is irrelevant.
southcoast
Member
Do you dispute Magliato's defense claimed at trial the weapon fired accidentally? Magliato never claimed intentional discharge. He stated he drew his weapon to scare the victim, and it accidently fired. Do you dispute this? His folly was pointing a weapon he never intended to fire. Basic gun rule violation.
If you have a single case that meets all the previously stated criteria please give an actual case citation rather than second hand references that conflict with actual court records.
Last edited:
- Status
