Gun Trigger Modifications a No Go According to Article

[Kifaru]

As both Rastoff and I have both requested an actual clean shooting case where weapon modifications bore real, not imagined or speculative, legal bearing on the actual outcome I have yet to see one single case presented. I wonder why? Because despite virtual, forum discussion, speculation and hypothetical this has never happened in the real world. Take this from a lawyer who has practiced for years in Washington, DC, which is ground zero for rediculous gun charges and prosecutions.

If you have a valid claim of self defense, the efficiency of your weapon is irrelevant weather you use a blaster or a light saber.

That was kind of my point. The modifications used had no real, factual bearing on the outcome of the Alvarez case, but they had to be addressed at trial nonetheless, totaling a not inconsiderable sum (even in 1980's dollars). Unless you represent your clients pro bono, money matters. It does to me at least. A lot!

And I'm no lawyer, but, light sabers aside, I think it might be relevant in a court of law if you shot your attacker once with a 9mm or struck him 23 times with a 9 iron. Even if the end result were the same in both cases: you escaped harm, and your attacker died, I imagine that the efficiency of the weapon used would be very relevant indeed.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Slightly off topic but relevant to LEOs, at my agency and many around my area, are that unauthorized modifications (i.e. beyond aftermarket grips/sights) have a direct affect during administrative investigations. I can remember several cases where the LEO was cleared of criminal/civil prosecution but was fired for violations in policy regarding his weapon. In two cases I was there when the charges were read and they turned in their badge/gun and 'suspended' pending their final notice of removal. In both cases the charges stemmed from unauthorized modification to their weapons.

At my agency and many other federal depts, a LEO will not be 'scoped' and represented by his agency if a clear violation of policy exists in the course of whatever law enforcement action occurred. So even if the actions of the LEO were correct, we can/have still get jammed up administratively (i.e. mod gun). Charges range from Failure to Follow Policy, Conduct Unbecoming, to Giglio issues. On top of that since the agency isn't representing you, the LEO is responsible for his own defense.

Anyway I realize this doesn't affect the majority of you here, but a mod'ed gun is something many LEOs have to take into consideration depending you their agency policies.

I agree with many here in that if it's a justified use of deadly force, whether I used a mod'ed gun, a stock gun, knife, screw driver, or brick, it shouldn't matter.

Completely different. LEO's have an authorized firearm, and must show that they were acting within both policy and the law. Private citizens only have the law. . .

 

[Jiman]

Completely different. LEO's have an authorized firearm, and must show that they were acting within both policy and the law. Private citizens only have the law. . .

I realize that. I stated that in my 1st sentence. The only reason I mentioned it is because we have other LEOs on the forum who might not know and it's a trick bag that some falsely think they're covered under LEOSA.

 

[southcoast]

That was kind of my point. The modifications used had no real, factual bearing on the outcome of the Alvarez case, but they had to be addressed at trial nonetheless, totaling a not inconsiderable sum (even in 1980's dollars). Unless you represent your clients pro bono, money matters. It does to me at least. A lot!

And I'm no lawyer, but, light sabers aside, I think it might be relevant in a court of law if you shot your attacker once with a 9mm or struck him 23 times with a 9 iron. Even if the end result were the same in both cases: you escaped harm, and your attacker died, I imagine that the efficiency of the weapon used would be very relevant indeed.

Alvarez claimed accidental discharge after pointing his weapon, which factually and legally conflicts with a claim of self defense. This thread is discussing modifications purely in the context of self defense, which should be the only scenario where a citizen points and fires a weapon at another person. In that context even a first year law student knows a simple objection to any attempted discussion of "modification" should suffice. If your lawyer wastes time and charges you for frivolous issues, you have a much greater problem than weapon modifications.

 

[Kifaru]

Alvarez claimed accidental discharge after pointing his weapon, which factually and legally conflicts with a claim of self defense. This thread is discussing modifications purely in the context of self defense, which should be the only scenario where a citizen points and fires a weapon at another person. In that context even a first year law student knows a simple objection to any attempted discussion of "modification" should suffice. If your lawyer wastes time and charges you for frivolous issues, you have a much greater problem than weapon modifications.

If anyone has any interest in how badly these things can go south, I would recommend reading "Black's Law'" the autobiography of Roy Black, the defense attorney for Luis Alvarez. He gives a very detailed, first-hand account of the trial. In fact, Officer Alvarez maintained from the beginning that he acted in self defense.

In a video arcade, Alvarez approached Neville Johnson from behind because he noticed a bulge that was a probable firearm in Johnson's waistband. Alvarez walked up close to Johnson in the noisy arcade so he could tell him to come quietly outside with him. Instead, Johnson spun around with his hands low, and Alvarez fired (double action) a single .38 special LSWCHP, striking Johnson in the forehead. The problem arose when a witness surfaced who testified that he saw Alvarez cock his service weapon. Why? Because that's just what you do with a revolver; you cock it before you fire. The witness had seen it done hundreds of times in TV shows and in the movies and so had every single jury member. Fortunately for Alvarez, the witness, Antonio Bell, was a high school junior at the time, and he was standing outside the arcade at night; his only view inside was through a tinted glass door. It also came out through Black's masterful cross examination that Bell had also been coached by the prosecution to "make sure" Bell saw Alvarez cock his revolver.

If Black had to face a more credible witness and was less skilled as an attorney, Alvarez might have gone to jail. On the other hand, if the revolver Alvarez used had been rendered DAO and did not have an unauthorized trigger job, even a court-appointed attorney could have easily dispensed with the ND claim of the prosecution.

My point is, if I can avoid burning through all my retirement funds just because some goblin wanted to victimize me or my family, I will do it, especially if it's as easy as simply using an unmodified self-defense tool.

 

[southcoast]

If anyone has any interest in how badly these things can go south, I would recommend reading "Black's Law'" the autobiography of Roy Black, the defense attorney for Luis Alvarez. He gives a very detailed, first-hand account of the trial. In fact, Officer Alvarez maintained from the beginning that he acted in self defense.

In a video arcade, Alvarez approached Neville Johnson from behind because he noticed a bulge that was a probable firearm in Johnson's waistband. Alvarez walked up close to Johnson in the noisy arcade so he could tell him to come quietly outside with him. Instead, Johnson spun around with his hands low, and Alvarez fired (double action) a single .38 special LSWCHP, striking Johnson in the forehead. The problem arose when a witness surfaced who testified that he saw Alvarez cock his service weapon. Why? Because that's just what you do with a revolver; you cock it before you fire. The witness had seen it done hundreds of times in TV shows and in the movies and so had every single jury member. Fortunately for Alvarez, the witness, Antonio Bell, was a high school junior at the time, and he was standing outside the arcade at night; his only view inside was through a tinted glass door. It also came out through Black's masterful cross examination that Bell had also been coached by the prosecution to "make sure" Bell saw Alvarez cock his revolver.

If Black had to face a more credible witness and was less skilled as an attorney, Alvarez might have gone to jail. On the other hand, if the revolver Alvarez used had been rendered DAO and did not have an unauthorized trigger job, even a court-appointed attorney could have easily dispensed with the ND claim of the prosecution.

My point is, if I can avoid burning through all my retirement funds just because some goblin wanted to victimize me or my family, I will do it, especially if it's as easy as simply using an unmodified self-defense tool.

The OP brought this in the context of a CCW situation, not law enforcement officers. Whenever I ask for an actual self defense situation involving a regular citizen someone eventually mentions Alvarez, which is not the situation OP brought up or discussed in this thread. Law enforcement has other issues as other members have pointed out including internal policies and procedures. Unlike regular citizens in most cases law enforcement actually draw and point weapons in non life or death situations. In a valid law enforcement situation on duty your employers insurance will foot the legal bill and should not come out of your personal retirement account as long as you are following the written internal policies and procedures.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Threads about this topic are always amusing, and the responses can be put into several categories:

1. Some people with no legal experience give out advice that they think, or at least hope, will apply in call cases in all locations, and in call cases, criminal and civil, such as tort law, where a "negligent or accidental discharge" might get a money judgment.

2. People who have modified their guns justify what they have done by either claiming it is fiction and a non-issue, that it is a theory not proven in any actual case, or that they don't care, preferring to be alive than to be dead, as if a one pound difference in trigger weight will make a difference at "gunfighting distance."

3. People attack the author of the article, regardless of credentials, experience or qualifications.

4. People don't seem to remember that ANY issue can be argued BOTH ways.

For example: light trigger equals either Rambo looking to kill someone, the cause of a terrible accident, or a modification the user did to assist in better shots during a high stress event like self-defense so as to be able to hit the intended target and protect bystanders.

What will a jury believe? Who knows. There are many people who were shocked or surprised by what the O. J. Simpson jury believed, and it seems that trying to predict that is a bad idea.

Common sense then would tell you that a shooting incident of any kind is going to bring trouble of its own. Why do modifications to your defense gun that have little, if any, effect, on your ability to defend yourself in a gunfight? Such modifications might just add a great deal to courtroom cute remarks to a jury about Rambo, etc., that might just be the "straw that breaks the camel's back" with a juror who does not understand about guns, gun modifications, etc.

Should sensible mods make a difference? No.

Will they be the source of remarks raising issues about your intent or your version of what happened? They might, and that seems reason enough not to further muddy the waters of the already difficult aftermath of a shooting scenario.

 

[mc5aw]

Guys, The link below is a very good article write up and after reading it, I am tempted to remove the Apex Duty Carry Trigger from my Shield and also the Aluminum Apex Trigger and go back to stock. I hate the stock trigger but according to this article, it's not so much the mod itself but the fact you turned yourself into some kind of Rambo. The article stressed that the prosecutor will try to ring you out to dry. What do you all think? Would you modify your CCW weapon to make trigger lighter? I thought just making it smoother but keeping trigger lb same would work but evidently what this article said is your gun will be sent to a lab to see what you did to it.

Gun Modifications, Light Triggers and Reloaded Ammunition

Any/every prosecutor will "try to ring you out to dry" irrespective of one's firearm ... that's the prosecutor's job. For as much potential there is for a prosecutor to exploit a non-fractory trigger, there is as much potential for a defense attorney to exploit for the switch to aftermarket parts ... arthritic hands, physical limitations, etc.

I had the Factory convert one of my J-frames years back with lighter spring kit, etc. What I ended up with was a trigger that was so light, it was scary. I sent it back asap, and had it returned to stock condition. My concern was my own safety, not a prosecutor's perception.

 

[southcoast]

Anyone who chooses to ignore history and everyday common sense and prefers to get their panties in a wad over something that has an infinitely less probability of occurring than a gorilla falling out of the sky to hand you a large briefcase of 100 dollar bills may as well not carry period and instead rely on their tinfoil hat to protect them.

 

[cmort666]

I'm FAR more worried about missing my target... and hitting the wrong person because of a miserable trigger than I'll EVER be about some room temperature IQ prosecutor who knows NOTHING about guns.

With a minimum of coaching from me, my defense attorney buddy could make that prosecutor pee himself, run crying from the courtroom and go hang himself.

I'm not the NYPD. I don't have a bottomless pit of taxpayer money and can't afford to substitute volume of fire for accuracy.

 

[4896worker]

wow I must be lucky every pistol I have that has any after market parts or work done on it was that way when I bot it even from the factory

 

[sctman800]

My carry guns are the sqame as my competition guns; stock. This is my personal preference and I am happy with it. I live in Illinois and am an NRA instructor certified for NRA Basic Pistol and Illinois State Police certified for CCW. In my classes I strongly advise against modifying a carry gun for any reason other than reliability. I also strongly recommend only carrying "factory ammo" in any carry gun. I also reload for all the calibers I shoot; handgun and rifle. I recently had a student argue with me on both points; his reloads are better and the lighter trigger makes him more accurate. He will do what he wants and that is allright as long as he remembers I advised against it.
One other point. In the article referenced it talks about a 65 year old grandmother with no knowledge of guns except what anti-gun polititions have told her. Around a year ago I was on a jury trial over a shooting. I was the only person on that jury with any knowledge of firearms. The defense did spend some time talking about the function of the alleged firearm that I knew had no bearing on what happened. If I was not thereit would possibl;y had an influence on the outcome. Jim.

 

[Hapworth]

I have made exactly one modification to my single defense firearm and positively the only gun I own or will ever need -- a Remington 870; I attached a bullhorn to it.

In this manner, any potential trouble will without doubt be able to hear me rack the slide.

And everybody knows all bad guys flee at the sound of a shotgun's racked slide.

If the bad guy injures himself fleeing, can this modification be used against me in a court of law?

 

[Pierre330]

Agree 100%!

When I considered changing the trigger (actually I had ti done by certified M&P gun smith) on my M&P to the Apex FSS, I had come across several "stories" out there, theories rather, about how in a SD shooting situation you'd have your *** handed to you by a prosecutor because of the mod.

I talked to a few people I know about it, and one guy in particular echoed cmort666's opinion. Basically, the "How can it be a bad modification if it gives me greater control and accuracy?" I'm sure there are many out there that feel that this is oversimplifying (and yes I know no issue can ever be broken down to one statement) but this simple idea was extremely logical to me.

Bottom line, to paraphrase what many have said here - if it's truly justified self defense then - the key word is "justified" isn't it? Regardless if you're using a modified gun, a knife, a pointy stick, whatever... justified....

As always - just my opinion and ramblings.

I'm FAR more worried about missing my target... and hitting the wrong person because of a miserable trigger than I'll EVER be about some room temperature IQ prosecutor who knows NOTHING about guns.

With a minimum of coaching from me, my defense attorney buddy could make that prosecutor pee himself, run crying from the courtroom and go hang himself.

I'm not the NYPD. I don't have a bottomless pit of taxpayer money and can't afford to substitute volume of fire for accuracy.

 

[cmort666]

And let me add that you can't make a trigger heavy enough to keep an ignorant or negligent person from squeezing it when they shouldn't.

The "New York trigger" is proof positive that you can't substitute gadgets for trigger discipline and common sense.

 

[gdnagle]

Well a article just in time from the gouging company.

"Kirk Evans, president of Texas Law Shield and U.S. Law Shield---

If you have intentionally fired your gun, the trigger pull weight is most likely legally irrelevant."

Now that seems to me to mean maybe and maybe not so still no concrete answer. But then again what do I know.

Are Trigger-Pull Modifications Legal Trouble Waiting to Happen?

 

[Kifaru]

Whatever your position, there is no denying that we live in a very litigious society. But it is also a free society. Adults can decide for themselves what is or isn't prudent.

As for myself, I know that because of who I am and the community in which I live, if I ever had to take the life of another human being in defense of my own, no one is going to slap me on the back and pin a medal on my chest. It is very likely I will be charged and very likely I will go to trial--regardless of the circumstances. Even if by some miracle my case didn't go to trial, I could still face a summary judgment that would bankrupt me. Your situation could be different.

In my case, weighing the cost/benefit ratio of trigger mods against the possible negative ramifications, the benefit of such mods are nonexistent. I shoot both of my carry guns very well as produced/issued; I find the triggers on both guns more than adequate. They're quite good, in fact. Even if there were only a .0001% chance of suffering negative consequences by altering my carry gun, it's still greater than zero. Given my situation, why would I modify my carry gun?

 

[cmort666]

Even if there were only a .0001% chance of suffering negative consequences by altering my carry gun, it's still greater than zero. Given my situation, why would I modify my carry gun?

The chances of "suffering negative consequences" from defending yourself with a firearm AT ALL are vastly higher than that. Ask George Zimmerman.

Given your situation, why would you carry a gun?

 

[4896worker]

Very interesting discussion .But if I was involved in a shoot I would be very care full saying anything without a attorney present . I am not saying I would not tell the responding officers that I feared for my life . Or point out any evidence or witnesses that proves that. Then I think it would be prudent to tell the officer that you realize what a serious sittuation this is and you want your attorney present.
As far as modification of the gun. Let the D.A. figure that out and then try to prove that I had the modifications done. Remember what you say can be used against you . And the sympathetic officer you are talking to is not the one that makes the decision to prosecute you. That is done by an elected official who may look at public opinion or the media for input . Can we all say Ferguson mo. Zimmerman .

 

[cmort666]

Very interesting discussion .But if I was involved in a shoot I would be very care full saying anything without a attorney present .

This is every bit as important as what firearm or ammunition you use, and FAR more important than whether you have a four or an eighteen pound trigger.

Give out the BARE minimum of information to the police to indicate that you were the victim, then SHUT UP until you have benefit of counsel.