Legal issues to consider regarding gun mod's for carry weapons.

[Seven3]

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.

Mr. Ayoob, I have a great deal of respect for you as a firearms expert and writer, but I think you are missing the point. Both of the cases you mentioned involved double action revolvers, and the issue was whether the guns were cocked. In Alvarez, the prosecutor argued that it was, and in Magliato, the defendant admitted that he did so. Neither of those cases involved deliberate modification of the trigger mechanism. There may be a case where one of the issues was the deliberate modification of the trigger where the defendant was a civilian CCW holder, but I haven't found it.

 

[Massad Ayoob]

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.

That's a little hard to follow. In Magliato, the citizen did fire, albeit unintentionally...Officer Alvarez didn't enjoy any protections that citizens do not, on the contrary, he was tried for manslaughter...and I'm not sure what "victim (who) was a CCW holder" you are talking about.

 

[southcoast]

That's a little hard to follow. In Magliato, the citizen did fire, albeit unintentionally...Officer Alvarez didn't enjoy any protections that citizens do not, on the contrary, he was tried for manslaughter...and I'm not sure what "victim (who) was a CCW holder" you are talking about.

Unlike regular citizens police officers commonly encounter situations that allow them to draw their weapon, without a further need to fire. Weapons are routinely drawn upon arrests etc. Citizens are not allowed to merely draw unless firing would be justified.

 

[bhayles]

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...

I thought it was apparent by the direction of this thread that we are talking about what happens if you do shoot someone in self defense. I'm sorry if you weren't able to discern that.

So, for anyone who is unable to figure out exactly what the progress of this thread is, I will rephrase:

Subsequent to having to use my gun to defend myself or family, I want to give a prosecutor absolutely nothing...nothing...that might make him think otherwise, even for a second.

There...perhaps that is more understandable for some.

 

[Seven3]

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.

You may be right, and I'm not taking a position one way or the other regarding whether trigger modification is (legally) a good idea or not. I think it would depend on the facts of the specific case. But the limited question is whether there has been a case where a civilian CCW holder has been involved in a shooting and a trigger modification was an issue. As stated above, I haven't found one.

 

[Massad Ayoob]

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.

In your earlier post, you wrote, ""As stated before these cases are also law enforcement officers, and not concealed carry self defense shootings as brought up by the OP." You apparently did not read any of the "actual court records" you refer to, or you would have known that Magliato was an armed citizen. If you had read the records, you would have known he drew the gun to ward off a junkie who was coming at him with a club...hardly a "basic gun rule violation."

 

[Massad Ayoob]

[QUOTE But the limited question is whether there has been a case where a civilian CCW holder has been involved in a shooting and a trigger modification was an issue. As stated above, I haven't found one.[/QUOTE]

I'm speaking of so-called "hair trigger" issues in general, which can take the form of a modified gun, OR a cocked revolver, OR a very light-trigger target pistol used in self-defense. The same dynamics will be in play in any of those, in terms of opposing counsel's attack.

 

[Muss Muggins]

[QUOTE But the limited question is whether there has been a case where a civilian CCW holder has been involved in a shooting and a trigger modification was an issue. As stated above, I haven't found one.

I'm speaking of so-called "hair trigger" issues in general, which can take the form of a modified gun, OR a cocked revolver, OR a very light-trigger target pistol used in self-defense. The same dynamics will be in play in any of those, in terms of opposing counsel's attack.[/QUOTE]

Magliato sought his victim out . . .

 

[Muss Muggins]

That's a little hard to follow. In Magliato, the citizen did fire, albeit unintentionally...Officer Alvarez didn't enjoy any protections that citizens do not, on the contrary, he was tried for manslaughter...and I'm not sure what "victim (who) was a CCW holder" you are talking about.

Magliato would have been perceived as the victim in his case, had he not confronted the assaulter.

 

[bhayles]

I'm speaking of so-called "hair trigger" issues in general, which can take the form of a modified gun, OR a cocked revolver, OR a very light-trigger target pistol used in self-defense. The same dynamics will be in play in any of those, in terms of opposing counsel's attack.

As you've seen earlier in this thread I do consider you a legit expert in your field. Your association with the ACLDN is one of the main reasons that induced me to join.

With that said, the above quote directly contradicts another quote of yours I posted earlier in the thread.

I don't remember the exact comment number where I posted it, but you basically said that the weight itself was not important...that whatever weight a manufacturer producing the gun said was OK was OK. You said that it was the end user's modification outside of spec that was the problem.

Now you say that even a spec gun can be a problem:

...a modified gun, OR a cocked revolver, OR a very light-trigger target pistol used in self-defense.

So...what controls? Manufacturer spec or user modification?

 

[one eye joe]

1. I'm not a cop.
2. I don't have qualified immunity.
3. I don't have a union backing me up.
4. I don't have a bottomless pit of taxpayer money to pay settlements and judgments.

I simply can't afford to substitute a 20lb. trigger and a magazine safety for accuracy and good judgment.

Here in Ohio, if somebody kicks in my door at 3:00am or tries to carjack me on the way from home, nobody's going to worry about whether I had a 3.5lb. Ghost connector in my Glock 19 (which I do). They're going to care if I adhered to Ohio deadly force law.

1. Was I in reasonable and immediate fear of life and limb?
2. If I wasn't in home or vehicle, did I ATTEMPT to RETREAT (ONLY if possible in PERFECT SAFETY)?
3. Did I cease the use of deadly force when the threat was neutralized?

I am VASTLY more concerned that I might miss and shoot the wrong person because of some garbage "NY trigger" than I'll EVER be that I got prosecuted because I shot somebody with a Glock with a 3.5lb. connector, who kicked in my door and tried to rob or murder me.

ALONG WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF FORUM MEMBERS, I AGREE. OF COURSE, I DOUBT IF ANY OF US WILL BE ON THE JURY…..

 

[moosedog]

It's either a justified shooting or not.
Some slip and fall type lawyer can always try to make an issue out of everything from your NRA membership to your ammo choice.

 

[Massad Ayoob]

bhayles, you asked "What controls: Manufacturer spec or user modification?"

Basically, it's manufacturer spec for a "duty weapon." With double action revolvers, it has long been understood that cocking the hammer when holding someone at gunpoint is a no-no, and that of course became an issue in the Magliato trial. Both the false allegation of the cocked hammer and the fact that two coils had been removed from the trigger return spring on Alvarez' revolver were issues in his case. Using a very light trigger target pistol for high-stress use could certainly be construable as negligence. When a police department orders Glock 34/35 Practical-Tactical models, Glock ships them with 5.5 pound connectors instead of the usual 4.5 of those models, as a matter of policy. It's why long ago, LAPD modified its target grade service revolvers, 4" and 6" K-38 series, to double action only for duty use.

Essentially, the negligence element the other side is trying to establish is "too light for high stress self-defense situations." Modifying the gun is merely one avenue toward falling into that trap.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

Muss Muggins, far from hunting down his "victim," Magliato was on his way to a police station to report the previous attack on him when he spotted the perps' car, asked his companion to call the police, and stood on the sidewalk waiting for the police to show up. That's where he was when he was attacked by the club-wielding "victim."

 

[Rastoff]

There is an aspect to this discussion that has gotten lost and that is the crux of the OP. Put in simple terms, will a person be put in prison because they used a modified gun for self-defense?

I believe I was the first to ask if anyone can show us a case where that happened. So far, there have been a couple of cases presented where a modified gun was used and was significant to the trial. However, in none of those cases was the shooter put in prison. In one the sentence was suspended and in the other the shooting was ruled justified. Please correct me if I've misunderstood.

So the question remains, is there a case where a modified gun, regardless of modification, was significant in sending someone to prison for what otherwise would have been a justified self-defense shooting?

 

[Muss Muggins]

Muss Muggins, far from hunting down his "victim," Magliato was on his way to a police station to report the previous attack on him when he spotted the perps' car, asked his companion to call the police, and stood on the sidewalk waiting for the police to show up. That's where he was when he was attacked by the club-wielding "victim."

" . . . Magliato pulled over, told his companion to call 911, and approached the vehicle (emphasis added) in hopes of waving down the first patrol car he saw . . . "

The Gun Zone - The Magliato Case

The phrase "stood on the sidewalk" doesn't appear in the above article.

Which is it?

 

[Massad Ayoob]

It's both.

 

[Massad Ayoob]

There is an aspect to this discussion that has gotten lost and that is the crux of the OP. Put in simple terms, will a person be put in prison because they used a modified gun for self-defense?

I believe I was the first to ask if anyone can show us a case where that happened. So far, there have been a couple of cases presented where a modified gun was used and was significant to the trial. However, in none of those cases was the shooter put in prison. In one the sentence was suspended and in the other the shooting was ruled justified. Please correct me if I've misunderstood.

So the question remains, is there a case where a modified gun, regardless of modification, was significant in sending someone to prison for what otherwise would have been a justified self-defense shooting?

Magliato spent several years in prison. Alvarez spent fourteen months with the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head. Implying that because he was ultimately acquitted means his ordeal didn't count is a little like telling a cancer survivor, "Well, you're still alive, so cancer is nothing to worry about."

 

[Muss Muggins]

It's both.

Wow. I don't buy that. It can't be both. Did he do one, then the other? According to your Gun Zone article, when he approached, he was attacked. Was he attacked just waiting on the sidewalk? Or when he approached? Or was he attacked twice? There's a huge tactical and factual difference between waiting on a sidewalk and approaching a vehicle. Which one did he do?

 

[bhayles]

So the question remains, is there a case where a modified gun, regardless of modification, was significant in sending someone to prison for what otherwise would have been a justified self-defense shooting?

A qualified...sorta.

IF a person is sent to prison for what is seemingly a justified shooting, and IF the prosecutor's decision to prosecute was based, at least in part, on the modification to the trigger, then yes, a modification did play a part.

What I can't understand about this conversation is, "Why take the chance?" Given the huge adrenelin dump that will occur in a life threatening situation, a 50 lb trigger pull would probably not be noticeable, and 99.9% of self-defense shootings will occur at such close range that the improved accuracy is completely unnecessary. Barring mass civil unrest if you shoot someone at a distance the trigger pull made an accuracy difference that mattered its not self defense...its wanting to shoot someone.

For some, shooting a pistol is sport AND self defense and such a person might not be able to afford both a good self defense pistol AND a target pistol. In that one, single example I MIGHT be able to see a light trigger on a self defense weapon.

For me, sport shooting is either hunting or range plinking with my AR. My G22 is a tool...a tool for one purpose, to defend myself or family. No light trigger needed for it to do its job.

 

[southcoast]

A qualified...sorta.

IF a person is sent to prison for what is seemingly a justified shooting, and IF the prosecutor's decision to prosecute was based, at least in part, on the modification to the trigger, then yems, a modification did play a part.

What I can't understand about this conversation is, "Why take the chance?" Given the huge adrenelin dump that will occur in a life threatening situation, a 50 lb trigger pull would probably not be noticeable, and 99.9% of self-defense shootings will occur at such close range that the improved accuracy is completely unnecessary. Carrying mass civil unrest if you shoot someone at a distance the trigger pull made an accuracy difference that mattered its not self defense...its wanting to shoot someone.

For some, shooting a pistol is sport AND self defense and such a person might not be able to afford both a good self defense pistol AND a target pistol. In that one, single example I MIGHT be able to see a light trigger on a self defense weapon.

For me, sport shooting is either hunting or range plinking. My G22 is a tool...a tool for one purpose, to defend myself or family. No light trigger needed for it to do its job.

Your stance was clarified in an earlier post, which I had overlooked. Thus my reply was inappropriate. I apologize and will move on.