Modify a carry pistol? Yes or No?

[moe l.]

Exactly, I'd rather have a reliable firearm that I am comfortable with a know that I've made it the way that I prefer, than to be dead. Courts be damned.

"Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six"......

 

[MaximumLawman]

Why would you want to be more accurate with a "target gun" than with the gun you carry for self defense?

Knowing what I know of defensive handgun fights and many years of anecdotal evidence, I just don't think that the extra accuracy gained by a smoother action or lighter trigger has ever made any difference in the real accuracy or outcome. I can't think of anyone who has needed that kind of accuracy "improvement" in a handgun from the factory of a quality maker. And I can absolutely see it coming up in a civil trial. Criminal trial, no. Also, I don't know of anyone who was shot in a gunfight who reasonably believed that the outcome would have been different if they'd had a better trigger on their gun.

As far as court actions: My wife told me about the various jurors' preconceived notions about guns when she was on a homicide trial jury. I told her to not bother coming home if they found the guy "not guilty". She did and I let her in the house anyway. I was proud of her for locking up the jury for 9 hours when they wanted to acquit a lot earlier. But the things she told me about what those morons were saying...Although I've never seen a prosecutor charge based on handgun mods...What happens if you DO get charged and your fate is in the hands of a jury who then get to hear about the mods you made to your gun? No thanks.

I want to be as accurate as possible when shooting. I want to be able to know exactly when my trigger is going to break and send that round down range and into its intended target. I go to the range all the time, practice drawing and getting on target when I'm at home, all so if I need to use it in self defense, it will be somewhat ingrained and automatic. Train how you fight.

Devil's advocate here...I'm on your jury after you get charged.....In the jury room it can go either way. I say: "I know lots of people who carry guns. I have ten cops in the family. They're not allowed to modify their guns. You know why? Because that's how people get killed! I think this guy was just some sort of gun nut from the suburbs who spent his whole life practicing to be able to finally kill somebody. My nephew the cop can shoot expert with his factory Sig but this guy needs to hot rod his thousand dollar gun from the factor? He was just hoping to be able to shoot someone....I say guilty and I'm not changing my mind until he's convicted or we get a hung jury." Then the rest of them "compromise" on manslaughter instead of "not guilty" or murder 2 so they can go home...
.
Think those conversations don't take place among your "peers" in the jury room? Think it's impossible for a "good guy" to have to defend himself in front of a bunch of morons?

 

[Jyezahn]

Knowing what I know of defensive handgun fights and many years of anecdotal evidence, I just don't think that the extra accuracy gained by a smoother action or lighter trigger has ever made any difference in the real accuracy or outcome. I can't think of anyone who has needed that kind of accuracy "improvement" in a handgun from the factory of a quality maker. And I can absolutely see it coming up in a civil trial. Criminal trial, no. Also, I don't know of anyone who was shot in a gunfight who reasonably believed that the outcome would have been different if they'd had a better trigger on their gun.

Sounds to me like you are the authority on it. Reality is, until you can show reliable statistics and point true instances of this kind of thing happening, your guess is as good as anyone elses. To me, better to be safe than sorry.

What happens if you DO get charged and your fate is in the hands of a jury who then get to hear about the mods you made to your gun? No thanks.

Again, show one or more instances where a clean shoot in self-defense has resulted in a civil suit against the shooter for the modifications made to their gun.

Devil's advocate here...I'm on your jury after you get charged.....In the jury room it can go either way. I say: "I know lots of people who carry guns. I have ten cops in the family. They're not allowed to modify their guns. You know why? Because that's how people get killed! Proof that modifications result in the death of someone more than not?
I think this guy was just some sort of gun nut from the suburbs who spent his whole life practicing to be able to finally kill somebody. My lawyer would retort by saying something to the effect that if I had been waiting my whole life to kill someone, I could've done it at any time, with or without the use of a modified weapon. My nephew the cop can shoot expert with his factory Sig but this guy needs to hot rod his thousand dollar gun from the factor? Making the trigger pull less gritty and replacing the trigger with an aluminum one to make it less squishy is hardly "hot-rodding" a thousand dollar gun. He was just hoping to be able to shoot someone....I say guilty and I'm not changing my mind until he's convicted or we get a hung jury." Then the rest of them "compromise" on manslaughter instead of "not guilty" or murder 2 so they can go home...
.
Think those conversations don't take place among your "peers" in the jury room? Think it's impossible for a "good guy" to have to defend himself in front of a bunch of morons? Of course, it's not impossible, it happens all the time, just not over a modified gun.

Bottom line, I hear what you're saying, but what I do to my gun to make it more reliable in my mind (cleaner break, better trigger feel, etc) is up to me, and I'll take every advantage in a life or death situation. Training to put rounds on target is what I was taught in the military, and it's what any good SD instructor will suggest to anyone who goes through a gun class. Practice may be the difference between my walking away or not. My life is more important than whether or not someone's family gets their jollies off of going after me in a civil suit over a good shoot. In all honesty, I think that civil suits from the families of the BG, following a good shoot or conviction of the BG, should be disallowed because the BG got what they lawfully deserved. IMHO.

 

[MaximumLawman]

Sounds to me like you are the authority on it. Reality is, until you can show reliable statistics and point true instances of this kind of thing happening, your guess is as good as anyone elses. To me, better to be safe than sorry.

I don't pretend to be an authority on anything. Would George Zimmerman, the Trayvon Martin guy, be going through what he's going through if it weren't for the influence of things outside the realm of the actual shooting?

I haven't compiled any statistics on the strange things that juries do. Ask a prosecutor or a criminal defense attorney. Michigan has a fleeing felon rule. You can't be charged with a crime if you shoot a fleeing felon...key words "fleeing" and "felon". A security guard had his house burglarized and chased down the B&E man. The burglar allegedly stopped to surrender and the homeowner/security guard shot him after he stopped fleeing. He was charged with the homicide. And I do believe he was excessively charged. If this was you, and I'm being hypothetical here because I know you wouldn't have shot the burglar...but if it was you, for the sake of argument, do you think handgun mods to your security guard/"vigilante" gun would help you or hurt you or have no influence on a jury, some or even most of the members of which may have a relative in prison for various felonies or who has died by gun violence....?

I don't know if there's case law or not but what I do know is that cases are referenced by guilty or not guilty and by the new legal principals they may set. They aren't referenced by what goes on in the jury room. You can't look up a case citation and find out out that the jurors were swayed by the argument that the shooter was a bloodthirsty gun nut who wanted to make his gun more deadly. I CAN tell you that I've seen jurors use some logic and rationalization from mars to convict or acquit people.

My lawyer would retort by saying something to the effect that if I had been waiting my whole life to kill someone, I could've done it at any time, with or without the use of a modified weapon.

"Mr. Smith's attorney argued that his client could have killed as many people as he wanted to with his hot rod gun but he didn't. But how many times did he really have the opportunity like he did in this case? He'd been training for this day and it finally arrived."

"Making the trigger pull less gritty and replacing the trigger with an aluminum one to make it less squishy is hardly "hot-rodding" a thousand dollar gun."

You would have to hope that the prosecution's expert is less credible to the jury than your expert. You won't be allowed to testify as to your opinion.

Why do you suppose virtually every police department in the land has a policy that prohibits the modification of duty handguns beyond the most simple stuff like SOMETIMES grips?

 

[Jyezahn]

We can go back and forth over and over, so I'll just leave it alone. The only thing I'll reply to is this:

"Really? How many times have you been approached by someone who gave you the opportunity to kill them like the victim in this case did? Did you make a police report?"
If, as you say, they're assuming that I was waiting my whole life just to kill someone, what would make them believe that I would have to wait for any specific circumstances to occur?

"Making the trigger pull less gritty and replacing the trigger with an aluminum one to make it less squishy is hardly "hot-rodding" a thousand dollar gun."

You would have to hope that the prosecution's expert is less credible to the jury than your expert. You won't be allowed to testify as to your opinion.

I wouldn't be allowed to state my own reasoning for making the modifications? Surely, if modifications were an issue, that would come up during questioning by the police, my attorney, and my statement would go on record in my defense. Or do I not get to talk to my attorney either?

Why do you suppose virtually every police department in the land has a policy that prohibits the modification of duty handguns beyond the most simple stuff like SOMETIMES grips?

So does the military for the most part, but if I'm issued a weapon and I make a complaint about how the trigger pull feels, my armorer is going to disassemble it and clean it up so it feels right. This may result in polishing the trigger bar, swapping out the trigger, etc. I'm sure (of course, I don't KNOW) that police department armorers have the leeway to do the same. But I could be wrong. Oh well.

 

[MaximumLawman]

I wouldn't be allowed to state my own reasoning for making the modifications? Surely, if modifications were an issue, that would come up during questioning by the police, my attorney, and my statement would go on record in my defense. Or do I not get to talk to my attorney either?

If you decided to testify you would would be able to give your reasoning but not your opinion. But then you would be open to cross examination. It might be better to let your expert talk about the gun mods if the issue came up.

 

[Jyezahn]

If you decided to testify you would would be able to give your reasoning but not your opinion. But then you would be open to cross examination. It might be better to let your expert talk about the gun mods if the issue came up.

That is, if the question of modifications even came up.

Bottom line is, even according to your previous statement, the modifications that I've made, surely make little difference under the stress of the moment. (translated: didn't make it any easier to shoot the BG than if I hadn't made the mods)

 

[MaximumLawman]

Bottom line is, even according to your previous statement, the modifications that I've made, surely make little difference under the stress of the moment. (translated: didn't make it any easier to shoot the BG than if I hadn't made the mods)

That's what I might would say if I were your expert and if I were your lawyer, in closing I might say....."He uses this gun for target practice. He never expected to have to use it to shoot someone, let alone kill them."

Do you know any lawyers who specialize in criminal defense work? Ask them if they think it would be easier to successfully defend someone criminally with or without trigger mods on their self defense gun. Maybe we have someone on the forum that can answer that.

 

[Florida J Frame]

Funny how the attorneys who are members here are staying away from this one.

 

[MaximumLawman]

My guess would be that from a criminal defense standpoint an attorney would see trigger mods as a "can't help, but could hurt" type situation and would do whatever he could to keep them out of the equation and even more so if he were defending someone in a civil case.

 

[Jyezahn]

My guess would be that from a criminal defense standpoint an attorney would see trigger mods as a "can't help, but could hurt" type situation and would do whatever he could to keep them out of the equation and even more so if he were defending someone in a civil case.

Wait, is this a criminal case or a civil lawsuit? You keep going back and forth. Of course, "can't help, but could hurt" is probably correct. The proper thing to do would be to leave the gun at home, and lay down for the BG and die. That way, he gets off scott free, and his family is happy. Meanwhile, my "modified gun" is locked safely away at home and my family has no recourse. As I said before, I'll do what I need to do to defend myself, courts be damned. End of my part of this discussion.

 

[Storm40]

Interesting read. Not exactly about what is being discussed but the use of an altered firearm plays a part.

http ://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA4/5CA4t822.htm

 

[MaximumLawman]

Wait, is this a criminal case or a civil lawsuit? You keep going back and forth. Of course, "can't help, but could hurt" is probably correct. The proper thing to do would be to leave the gun at home, and lay down for the BG and die. That way, he gets off scott free, and his family is happy. Meanwhile, my "modified gun" is locked safely away at home and my family has no recourse. As I said before, I'll do what I need to do to defend myself, courts be damned. End of my part of this discussion.

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, just offering my perspective on the original and resulting posts. One thing I've noticed about the "Better to be tried by twelve" crowd in these forums: I've never heard one of them say: "I've just completed 2-12 in level IV state penitentiary and I wouldn't have done a thing differently because it's always better to be tried by twelve than carried by six!" I DO know a few cops who have served time in prison after use of force decisions gone bad and I know every single ONE of them would have done something different if they had it to do all over again....The savory taste of the familiar use of force platitude loses some of its flavor when you're locked down 23 hours a day for your own protection, I'm told. I'm not saying there's much chance of an altered gun leading to a conviction but just making an observation of that often-thrown about expression.

 

[Jyezahn]

Haha, but I bet if you ask if they'd rather be dead or have their freedom after 2-12 yrs, none of them would ever choose the former.

 

[shawn mccarver]

If you never have to use it, there will never be an issue. If you do use it, there will be a ton of legal issues. The hardest to defend against are modifications that make a gun easier to shoot than the manufacturer intended. The term "hair trigger" sounds awful in a packed court room. Even something as simple as a trigger shoe can be artfully spun by a clever attorney into a weapon of mass destruction. Other than after-market grips, most departments forbid any modifications to issue weapons.

On the other hand, I have heard Massad Ayoob make the case in print that a REASONABLY improved trigger shows a CONCERN for innocent bystanders by allowing more control over the weapon, thereby making the chance of injuring an innocent bystander less likely. If the pull is too heavy, it is easy to pull a shot off and hit a bystander.

A pull in which a noticeable "hitch" has been smoothed out, or a double action pull which is SMOOTHER, not lighter, makes it less likely to pull a shot off target. Thus, the owner is more responsible by spending hard earned money to make the use of his weapon less dangerous to bystanders, etc. Naturally, a weapon should just never be cocked during an encounter. Plus, there are certain other safety rules that must be observed, such as finger off the trigger until sights are on the target, etc.

 

[team sidewinder]

I find no need for it for my Shield CCW. Just me.

 

[ThorOdinson]

Doug M. and others have it covered. In my case I've been a cop in 3 cities and 2 states. Carried semi-auto and wheel guns. In Colorado a citizen is allowed deadly force should an intruder enter a dwelling. No civil action is permitted. We had all weapons checked by a dept armorer (another Police Agent/Gunsmith) whether for on or off duty use. I don't recall ANY officer carrying a box stock weapon. Grips, action, sights were the most common changes. Word of caution. States differ. You may have no police experience, range experience hard to verify, but if I were in that movie theater near here I would have liked to have you carrying ANYTHING!! Same for the shootings in malls, colleges (a CCW permit holder can carry on campus of all public universities & community colleges in Colorado) Thor

 

[Repli-can't]

I knew this question would never result in a cut and dried answer but WOW!! Lots of passion going on with some of these answers! After reading through everyone's comments - and especially the LEO's comments - I think I will keep my paranoia under control. The small mods that I have done have only helped me be more accurate which should be a good thing. My trigger pull is still in the 5 lb+/- range but I am no longer pulling off target due to the original very heavy trigger pull. On the plus side this conversation has helped me realize that while I am an ok shot I will definitely be taking a good class or two to improve. And self defense aside shooting as a hobby is a lot of fun and getting better only makes it more fun.

 

[walkin' trails]

One poster above asked for any actual case law where modifications became an issue. I can't quote anything specific, but again refer anyone who is looking for the pros and cons to consult Massad Ayoob's studies. He compiles a lot of such material, and is familiar with attorneys who have defended people who used firearms to defend themselves.

One of the problems that even police officers encounter after a critical incident is the "statement" following the shooting. Some agencies allow their officers several days to get themselves together before making a statement, and others require a statement before the smoke has cleared. I have listened to officers involved in shootings who admitted that even though they were ready to articulate their actions right after the incident, a delay helped them realize that they needed to get their heads together. Civilians are not afforded that opportunity, and depending on the circumstances, may really piss off a prosecutor who has an agenda. I recall an LEO who used deadly force against a suspect, who invoked "Garrity", which prevented them from using his post incident statement as evidence. Management was so infuriated that he spent most of a year on administrative leave not realizing that the decision had been made within a few days that he acted in self defence in accordance with the deadly force policy and the law governing that area. He was carrying an unmodified company issued gun. Management tried to paint him as being too quick on the trigger. Can you imagine if they'd found that his trigger draw had been lightened to boot? Would it have had a role in the ultimate outcome in his case? I don't know, but I can imagine that it would have further clouded the issue.

A shooting in self defense has the potential to cost the person who used a weapon in self defense a great deal of money in criminal or civil defense, or both. Hopefully the shooter hasn't run off at the mouth under duress and made statements that will be used against him, but regardless, it is important to find a good attorney who is knowledgeable of these matters. Not all attorneys are, or even care. Furthermore, a good attorney knowledgable in these matters will know where to look for "expert" witnesses whose testimoney is reputable, and cannot be impeached by a glory happy prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney. I saw this years ago in a case that involved the excessive use of force being tried in federal court. The government brought in expert witnesses who were likely the cheapest bid. The defense brought in credible experts and the defendant was acquitted. The defense attorney had also done his homework and discovered that the "victim" had been involved in other incidents where he had been injured. Your attorney must do the same thing. And in him/her doing so, it will become expensive. That LEO paid out over $50K to keep him out of prison.

And finally, the Zimmerman case also comes to mind, as another member posted. Think of all the dirty things that the news media has done to convict Zimmerman before he gets to court. How'd you like to be tried by 12 under those circumstances. Not saying that the carried by six is even an option, but I don't want to wait on the inside of a jail or a prison waiting for my case to be appealed, either. Imagine if the media had proclaimed that he was carrying a pistol with a hair trigger...

These issues are also influenced by where you live and the political environment. Regardless, if you're going to carry a gun, be prepared to articulate your actions, which includes knowing the laws governing the use of deadly force in your area and why you modified your handgun's trigger. Know of a good attorney to call who has experience in getting people acquitted who were accused of murder as a result of using self defense. And finally, use common sense.

 

[shooter5112]

One poster above asked for any actual case law where modifications became an issue. I can't quote anything specific, but again refer anyone who is looking for the pros and cons to consult Massad Ayoob's studies. He compiles a lot of such material, and is familiar with attorneys who have defended people who used firearms to defend themselves.

And if you research some of Ayoob's writing, you will find that his version can be very different from the factual version.