Legal implications of Laser grips

[moosedog]

Lawyers will throw anything at the wall to see if it sticks and clouds the minds of a jury. Common sense most often prevails.

 

[snuffy51]

Time out! Gotta change my battery........No thanks. My front sight works every time. K.I.S.S.

 

[TomkinsSP]

... (eg imagining a bg surrendering because of a red dot: great TV, not so much real life).

Mr. Goodguy just wants to go about his business unmolested. He does not want a fight. Ever.

But trying to use a gun as a prop to stop a situation is a way to get Mr. Goodguy killed. The gun shoud only ever come out at a time that its use is morally, ethically and legally justified. If a criminal assaliant turns and runs or drops his weapon or otherwise makes it clear he no longer poses a threat, great.

But trying to convince them is foolish...

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Lawyers will throw anything at the wall to see if it sticks and clouds the minds of a jury. Common sense most often prevails.

^^^^ this.

A guy would have to hide under the bed curled-up in the fetal position to avoid doing anything a zealous prosecutor might try to use against him. Don't overthink it.

Know and obey the law.

 

[Ziggy2525]

A new wrinkle on the age old debate about gun mods impact on a self defense trial.

I read there was some issue that adding laser grips could make defense more difficult in a self defense jury trial.

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

The only issue I could think of is it might look like you watch too many TV shows.

A similar question came up on another board a while back. A couple attorneys responded. I thought some of the answers were helpful.

Not an attorney or giving legal advice - this is my paraphrase from several posts...

Broadly, there are three types of SD shootings 1) Totally Justified. 2) Maybe Justified. 3) Totally Unjustified. In a totally justified shooting, it doesn't matter what's on your weapon. In a totally unjustified shooting, you're toast and it doesn't matter what's on your weapon.

It's the "maybe" case where aggravating and mitigating factors come into play. And that's where trigger pull, laser grips, etc. can come up. "Maybe Justified" occurs more often than people realize.



That description made sense to me.

 

[elm_creek_smith]

As in most sd shooting, the individual facts determine the issues: things might be quite different if you pick someone off at 40 yards with your laser sights as opposed to having a laser on a pistol used at 5 yards.

If you are shooting at someone at 40 yards with your handgun, you may have bigger problems than whether or not you have a laser on your gun.

As a practical matter, I've never heard of a civilian sd shooting where a laser sight was used, let alone one in which it was an issue.

My wife's S&W Model 681 is equipped with a Crimson Trace grip. She shot two coyotes in our back yard. It wasn't an issue. (We live in the country.)

Laser sights are great for the range and for active fantasy lives (eg imagining a bg surrendering because of a red dot: great TV, not so much real life).

Laser sights are excellent tools for teaching someone trigger control on the range. They are also excellent for people who, for whatever reason, like age for instance, might have trouble with iron sights. My wife isn't the least little bit interested in using the laser dot as a tool for intimidation. BTW, coyotes aren't intimidated by lasers.

 

[Rpg]

If you are shooting at someone at 40 yards with your handgun, you may have bigger problems than whether or not you have a laser on your gun.

Absolutely!

My wife's S&W Model 681 is equipped with a Crimson Trace grip. She shot two coyotes in our back yard. It wasn't an issue. (We live in the country.)

I don't think of coyote shooting as self defense : more like pest control.

Still haven't heard of a single instance of someone using a laser in a real self defense shooting.

 

[TomkinsSP]

If you are shooting at someone at 40 yards with your handgun, you may have bigger problems than whether or not you have a laser on your gun.

There are at least two ways I can interpret this. If you have fallen through a black hole and are in Austin Texas pinned down buy a lunatic with an M-1 in a tower, it may be difficult to get a good shot at 120 feet, but nobody is going to question your attempt. A good SD situation is determined by the facts not a tape measure.

On the other hand your green or red dot is going to fade away long before your target, and if it did not it would be set at what 7-10 yards so you would need A WHOLE LOT of adjustment.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

It's the "maybe" case where aggravating and mitigating factors come into play. And that's where trigger pull, laser grips, etc. can come up. "Maybe Justified" occurs more often than people realize.

Well said, Ziggy.

Here's your free legal opinion.

Years ago, when I was shooting cowboy action, we used to debate whether our single action revolvers were useful for self defense or whether we would literally be considered to be cowboys and be in trouble automatically. Interestingly, one aspect of that answer is that if anyone is qualified to use an SAA for self defense it would be a cowboy action shooter who is overwhelmingly skilled in the use of that weapon.

We did agree that using guns/calibers used by the local gendarmerie was always a good idea.

So, notwithstanding cowboy skills, lasers, or Single Action Army revolvers, the answer is the same - it is not the gun or modifications to the gun that matter, or caliber - it is the entirety of the circumstances. Period.

A "righteous shoot" is just that and justification closes the door on the argument. Sure, if you live in Chicago or NYC, or similar, those people are so anti-gun that you will have a higher bar to go over to explain the justification. But in most normal jurisdictions it is not quite as difficult.

The circumstances will determine justification. I don't specifically see lasers being that big a deal but light triggers could be. Naming your handgun "Josey Wales" won't stand you in good light if a prosecutor finds out. But if the gun you use to defend yourself was used when three armed perpetrators kicked in your door was a full auto M-4 it won't matter because of the overwhelming justification. Even if you did shout out "Say hello to my little friend." But using that same weapon on New Year's Eve when some tipsy neighbor stumbles through your front door is a whole different circumstance. Is it justified or is it maybe justified? So complacency can't supplant good judgment. The entirety of the circumstances matters.

 

[shouldazagged]

What if there were no hypothetical situations?

 

[Bugkiller99]

What if there were no hypothetical situations?

I see what you did there.....

 

[TomkinsSP]

A guy would have to hide under the bed curled-up in the fetal position to avoid doing anything a zealous prosecutor might try to use against him...

In the DARK!!? Under a BLANKET!!? Under the BED!!? Why you were CREATING an obvious TRIP-AND-FALL HAZARD for that poor soul (with sixteen priors) who broke into your home!!

 

[Retired Chief]

I consider this pointless and will move on to the next thread.

 

[Donn]

Who knows. Going to court has always been a roll of the dice, whether it's a traffic ticket or a shooting incident.

 

[Bozz10mm]

Lasers do not give the bad guys a sporting chance. That's what the lawyers would say.

 

[Doug M.]

The laser on a BUG is a good way to compensate for the small sights and problematic ergonomics, plus the very real possibility of a bad physical location, and still deliver accurate useful fire. Check out H.I.T.S. in the Dallas area, of which member Nyeti is an owner. The laser as a concern is as far as I am concerned, a non-issue.

 

[cmort666]

My take on it is: use stock guns, and store bought high quality self defense ammo (I like Hornady Critical Defense ammo - what a great name if one must testify; my second choice would be the ammo my local police department is issued).

I use only factory LSWC-HPs or JHPs for my self-defense guns.

I have only EVER carried ONE "stock" gun for self-defense, my current Citadel 3.5" M1911. And it's only "stock" because it has the best out of the box trigger of any M1911 I've ever owned. And it's not really "stock" because it doesn't like the OEM magazines, which were replaced with McCormicks.

My first Glock was a Glock 22 which I bought new. I didn't notice that it had the despicable "NY trigger". I couldn't get that contemptible piece of garbage out of that gun fast enough. Years later I put in a 3.5lb. Ghost connector and did the "$0.25 trigger job" on it.

A gun with a trigger so stupidly bad that it impairs my ability to hit at whom I'm aiming, is WORSE than worthless.

In Ohio, if I'm in a justified self-defense shooting, my assailant or his mutant survivors can pound sand. They can sue until the sun goes supernova. They can't collect a penny. If my trigger is so bad that I miss the person trying to maim or murder me and hit an innocent person, the victim or his survivors OWN me.

 

[rwsmith]

Lawyers take pride......

....in being really creative when it comes to finding new ways to prosecute something. Even if the jury doesn't buy it, the lawyer is obligated to push his case whether it makes sense or not. I could be charged with putting Hogue grips on my gun to make it more controllable, therefore more lethal.

 

[Rastoff]

For decades, I have challenged anyone to cite a single case where this happened, and no one ever has.

I'm with you. At least once a month someone brings up how modified guns or crazy sayings on your t-shirt will send you to prison. Yet, not one single case has been brought up where it's happened.

In an otherwise righteous self-defense shooting, all this other stuff won't matter.

Case in point. Here's a situation where a policeman had an unkind saying on the dust cover of his AR. Lots of people said, "Oh man, he's going down for that alone." It didn't happen and he was just acquitted: Cop Whose AR15 Dust Cover Was Used Against Him in Court Learns Fate | Tribunist

 

[Doug M.]

OTOH, the usual apologists for the criminally feral and their lynch mob mentality were empowered by that. It should not be admissible, but ...