Playboypenguin
Moderator
Why? Do you have an ounce of evidence of any precedent? Or are you just spooked by internet scary stories?
Altering firearms
- Thread starter Saguaro Firearms
- Start date
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If it's a good shoot - why are you on trial? 
There is a large body of research on what influences juries. Weapons issues have been shown to influence mock juries.
There is no way to know what goes on in a specific trial. Prosecutors do make it a point of displaying and exaggerating the weapon. If they didn't, would their presentation be less effective? Can't tell in that specific case as we don't have alternate realities. Thus, the simulations.
Take it or leave it. You will have the jail time fun.
There is a large body of research on what influences juries. Weapons issues have been shown to influence mock juries.
There is no way to know what goes on in a specific trial. Prosecutors do make it a point of displaying and exaggerating the weapon. If they didn't, would their presentation be less effective? Can't tell in that specific case as we don't have alternate realities. Thus, the simulations.
Take it or leave it. You will have the jail time fun.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
BTW, a study of police demonstrated that if they stopped you for a minor firearms violation and they had discretion - if the gun was an AR vs. a sporting gun - the former was more likely to get you busted or at least the ride.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
[1] I am a lawyer. Of course, I'm not your lawyer, so I'm not giving legal advice. I'm providing comment on a general legal topic based on my training and experience.
[2] We really have to get over this "a good shoot is a good shoot" business. If you are on trial after a self defense shooting, someone doesn't think it was a "good shoot." Either the DA decided that he had something to prosecute or the grand jury concluded that there was probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that you did it. There is a dispute about whether the shooting was justified, and determining whether it was a "good shoot" is now going to be up to the judge and/or jury.
You don't have the final say as to whether or not it's a "good shoot." Sometimes, probably often, the evidence may be substantial that your use of lethal force was justified self defense; and if that's the case, things like modifications to you gun pretty much won't matter.
But there's no guarantee that if a "bad day" happens to you, when the dust settles everyone will be agreed that it was a "good shoot." Physical evidence may be equivocal. Witnesses may tell conflicting stories.
[3] If you're going to need to tell your story to a jury, in my view, certain types of modification, basically things like disabling a safety device, could make things tougher for you. These issues have been discussed at great length on this board. See the following threads:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=372759
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=366434
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=388901
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3586536
[4] I will not use a gun on which a safety device has been disabled, a gun which has been modified to have a very light trigger (something less than around 4 pounds, ETA -- I favor a 1911) or handloads for self defense or carry.
[5] It's really primarily a matter of how certain such things could affect the impression that members of your jury have of you. Things that might bother a jury can influence how the evaluate you, your testimony and the evidence. Remember that a big part of your legal defense will be you telling your story, and so the jury's take on you can matter. We know, from post verdict interviews of some of the jurors in the Harold Fish case (in gun friendly Arizona), that some of them were bothered by his use of a powerful gun (10mm) and JHP ammunition. (Fish was convicted of manslaughter and went to prison. He did win his appeal, and is now free. But the point is that the gun and ammunition affected how his jurors evaluated the evidence.)
[6] But other gun modifications, like full length guide rods, better sights, and the like, are probably benign and shouldn't be a problem. But it wouldn't hurt to have a good and non-technical explanation for why you did something.
[7] And about jury selection: Your lawyer will be busy keeping anti-gun folks, members of the Brady Bunch and the like, off your jury. But the prosecutor will be systematically keeping people who are pro-gun (like NRA members, active recreational shooters, maybe anyone who has a gun) off the jury. So your jury will pretty much be made up of folks who have no special knowledge about, nor interest in, guns. Technical explanations will go in one ear and out the other.
[8] And a good general rule in court is that the less you need to explain, the better off you'll be.
[2] We really have to get over this "a good shoot is a good shoot" business. If you are on trial after a self defense shooting, someone doesn't think it was a "good shoot." Either the DA decided that he had something to prosecute or the grand jury concluded that there was probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that you did it. There is a dispute about whether the shooting was justified, and determining whether it was a "good shoot" is now going to be up to the judge and/or jury.
You don't have the final say as to whether or not it's a "good shoot." Sometimes, probably often, the evidence may be substantial that your use of lethal force was justified self defense; and if that's the case, things like modifications to you gun pretty much won't matter.
But there's no guarantee that if a "bad day" happens to you, when the dust settles everyone will be agreed that it was a "good shoot." Physical evidence may be equivocal. Witnesses may tell conflicting stories.
[3] If you're going to need to tell your story to a jury, in my view, certain types of modification, basically things like disabling a safety device, could make things tougher for you. These issues have been discussed at great length on this board. See the following threads:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=372759
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=366434
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=388901
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3586536
[4] I will not use a gun on which a safety device has been disabled, a gun which has been modified to have a very light trigger (something less than around 4 pounds, ETA -- I favor a 1911) or handloads for self defense or carry.
[5] It's really primarily a matter of how certain such things could affect the impression that members of your jury have of you. Things that might bother a jury can influence how the evaluate you, your testimony and the evidence. Remember that a big part of your legal defense will be you telling your story, and so the jury's take on you can matter. We know, from post verdict interviews of some of the jurors in the Harold Fish case (in gun friendly Arizona), that some of them were bothered by his use of a powerful gun (10mm) and JHP ammunition. (Fish was convicted of manslaughter and went to prison. He did win his appeal, and is now free. But the point is that the gun and ammunition affected how his jurors evaluated the evidence.)
[6] But other gun modifications, like full length guide rods, better sights, and the like, are probably benign and shouldn't be a problem. But it wouldn't hurt to have a good and non-technical explanation for why you did something.
[7] And about jury selection: Your lawyer will be busy keeping anti-gun folks, members of the Brady Bunch and the like, off your jury. But the prosecutor will be systematically keeping people who are pro-gun (like NRA members, active recreational shooters, maybe anyone who has a gun) off the jury. So your jury will pretty much be made up of folks who have no special knowledge about, nor interest in, guns. Technical explanations will go in one ear and out the other.
[8] And a good general rule in court is that the less you need to explain, the better off you'll be.
The Tourist
Moderator
In defining the nation as a whole your position is undoubtedly correct.
I live in the 'Peoples' Republik of Madison' where our Chief of Police baked his Glock in an oven and our former mayor tried to get "flying war machines" from Truax Field banned from his airspace.
Here we live in a world where if you miss your shot you're endangering safety and if you hit the perp you're a cold blooded killer. Besides having no CCW provision--despite or state's 2A--you cannot even sell a handgun within the city limits.
When late night murders went up after bar time our current police chief walked a beat "to find out why."
It's no wonder the joke is that Madison is 25 square miles surrounded by reality.
I wouldn't present a pistol modified in anyway for a trial in a Madison courtroom even if I had plugged Osama bin Laden smuggling C4 into an orphanage. In my city you must "call the police" first, last and always unless you want to be branded a "cowboy."
Subscribe to "The Wisconsin State Journal."
I live in the 'Peoples' Republik of Madison' where our Chief of Police baked his Glock in an oven and our former mayor tried to get "flying war machines" from Truax Field banned from his airspace.
Here we live in a world where if you miss your shot you're endangering safety and if you hit the perp you're a cold blooded killer. Besides having no CCW provision--despite or state's 2A--you cannot even sell a handgun within the city limits.
When late night murders went up after bar time our current police chief walked a beat "to find out why."
It's no wonder the joke is that Madison is 25 square miles surrounded by reality.
I wouldn't present a pistol modified in anyway for a trial in a Madison courtroom even if I had plugged Osama bin Laden smuggling C4 into an orphanage. In my city you must "call the police" first, last and always unless you want to be branded a "cowboy."
Subscribe to "The Wisconsin State Journal."
Microgunner
New member
Oooooo...I'm staying out of Madison Wi.
I am not a lawyer.
Most people don't have a Westlaw account to find the cases where this was a factor, so it's not surprising they don't have specific cites. But I do, so here's as many as I could find in the 10min I spent looking...
Modified "hair trigger" a factor in 2nd degree murder conviction:
People v. Gray
206 A.D.2d 883, 615 N.Y.S.2d 154
N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.,1994.
July 15, 1994
Modified trigger a factor in civil actions:
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge
10 Cal.3d 94, 514 P.2d 123
Cal. 1973.
September 25, 1973
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co.
103 Cal.App.3d 694, 163 Cal.Rptr. 219
Cal.App., 1980.
March 24, 1980
There are many cases where the fact that a handgun did not have a modified trigger was a plus for the defense:
State v. Brown
115 Ohio St.3d 55, 873 N.E.2d 858
Ohio,2007.
October 03, 2007
State v. Anderson
Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2006 WL 1493263
Ohio App. 12 Dist.,2006.
May 30, 2006
People v. Andrews
Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2007 WL 4442784
Cal.App. 5 Dist.,2007.
December 20, 2007
Gardner v. Galetka
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 25513130
D.Utah,2003.
August 03, 2003
State v. Underwood
Not Reported in N.E.2d, 1988 WL 37058
Ohio App.,1988.
March 29, 1988
McKinney v. State
143 Idaho 590, 150 P.3d 283
Idaho,2006.
December 19, 2006
There are many more, but that's all the time I have at the moment.
Most people don't have a Westlaw account to find the cases where this was a factor, so it's not surprising they don't have specific cites. But I do, so here's as many as I could find in the 10min I spent looking...
Modified "hair trigger" a factor in 2nd degree murder conviction:
People v. Gray
206 A.D.2d 883, 615 N.Y.S.2d 154
N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.,1994.
July 15, 1994
Modified trigger a factor in civil actions:
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge
10 Cal.3d 94, 514 P.2d 123
Cal. 1973.
September 25, 1973
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co.
103 Cal.App.3d 694, 163 Cal.Rptr. 219
Cal.App., 1980.
March 24, 1980
There are many cases where the fact that a handgun did not have a modified trigger was a plus for the defense:
State v. Brown
115 Ohio St.3d 55, 873 N.E.2d 858
Ohio,2007.
October 03, 2007
State v. Anderson
Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2006 WL 1493263
Ohio App. 12 Dist.,2006.
May 30, 2006
People v. Andrews
Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2007 WL 4442784
Cal.App. 5 Dist.,2007.
December 20, 2007
Gardner v. Galetka
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 25513130
D.Utah,2003.
August 03, 2003
State v. Underwood
Not Reported in N.E.2d, 1988 WL 37058
Ohio App.,1988.
March 29, 1988
McKinney v. State
143 Idaho 590, 150 P.3d 283
Idaho,2006.
December 19, 2006
There are many more, but that's all the time I have at the moment.
Last edited:
While I have no problem customizing a handgun with grips, trigger jobs, sights, bells, whistles, etc., I leave that stuff for the range guns and guns I shoot in league competition.
I don't really care if it is just an internet scary story, I don't want to explain to some jury why I have a blood splattered smiley face grips or punisher grips on my home protection gun or carry gun.
I don't really care if it is just an internet scary story, I don't want to explain to some jury why I have a blood splattered smiley face grips or punisher grips on my home protection gun or carry gun.
It's not that it bothers him (or anyone else) what he's saying is that it's an oversimplification.
Yes, a good shoot is a good shoot. However that means virtually nothing in practical terms because you, as the shooter don't get to decide if it's a good shoot.
Other people will decide whether or not it's a good shoot and they may not be inclined to use the same criteria to make the decision that you would use.
So saying "Don't worry about gun modifications, if it's a good shoot, it's a good shoot." is like saying, "Don't worry about supporting evidence, if you're right, you're right". That strategy only works if everyone involved agrees to go along with whatever you say.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Sarge said:
Sarge, we've been through all this before and it's all been covered in the threads I've posted links to.Sarge said:
And yes, "a good shoot is a good shoot." But as I and others, including Glenn E. Meyer (see post 23) have said, sometimes someone may use his gun in what he believes is justified self defense, but the DA or grand jury doesn't agree, so he winds up on trial. Now it's not a "good shoot" until the jury decides it is.
Last edited:
No John, that strategy only works if you're right; meaning you acted within the law and that law (Castle Doctrine) makes you immune to civil or criminal prosecution, for those lawful actions.
No jury is necessary to make that determination. My experience is that 'good shoots' are resolved without juries more often than not.
I am aware of no law pertaining to the use of force, in defense of self or others, where the terms 'modified gun' or 'reloaded ammunition' appear as elements to prohibited acts.
No jury is necessary to make that determination. My experience is that 'good shoots' are resolved without juries more often than not.
I am aware of no law pertaining to the use of force, in defense of self or others, where the terms 'modified gun' or 'reloaded ammunition' appear as elements to prohibited acts.
Again, this is all predicated on EVERYONE who matters agreeing that it is a 'good shoot'.
It's still the "if you're right, you're right" argument but you're still leaving out the part where everyone else also has to agree you're right before you're REALLY right.
YES, it goes without saying that if the circumstances are clearly in the defender's favor, gun alterations are unlikely to be an issue. But it also goes without saying (or it should) that not all defensive shootings are that clearcut. The portion of the quote above that I emphasized makes it clear that even you realize that this is true.
When not everyone who matters agrees that "you're right"/"it's a good shoot" then gun alterations can make a difference and HAVE made a difference.
You should also be aware that this statement doesn't counter any claim made on this thread or any other thread that I've seen that discusses this topic.
In other words, no one is claiming that "the terms 'modified gun' or 'reloaded ammunition' appear as elements to prohibited acts", this discussion is about how a modified gun or reloaded ammunition can complicate a person's defense in a criminal or civil trial or otherwise be deleterious to their claim of self-defense.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
[1] But it is sometimes the case that not everyone agrees that you're right.Sarge said:
[2] Not every jurisdiction has a Castle Doctrine.
[3] Even in jurisdictions with a Castle Doctrine of some sort, they vary; and not every defensive gun use is necessarily going to fall within its protections.
Perhaps more often that not. But that still means that sometime they're not. There's no guarantee that your defensive gun use won't fall into the "not" category.Sarge said:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I recommend that if you think your shoot is good, you just tell your tale to the officers and the DA and never consult a lawyer.
All those folks with lawyers, those police who want their rep - not needed.
All those folks with lawyers, those police who want their rep - not needed.
Uncle Buck
New member
After reading again what has been written, I understand a little more. The simple fact that you altered your gun is not going to make a wit of difference... Provided you acted in the right, the police and the prosecuting attorney believe you acted in the right.
Where the modification could come back to bite you in the butt is when the authorities believe you did not act accordingly and could have taken other measures.
A raving lunatic breaks into my house and has a gun, threatening to shoot myself or my family. I shoot him, probably get cleared for justifiable self defense.
The same lunatic breaks into my house, but not with a weapon, demanding access to my Doritos chips... Probably not a very good self defense situation.
So I guess it all depends on the circumstances in which the shooting happens.
I just hope that I am never put into that situation.
Where the modification could come back to bite you in the butt is when the authorities believe you did not act accordingly and could have taken other measures.
A raving lunatic breaks into my house and has a gun, threatening to shoot myself or my family. I shoot him, probably get cleared for justifiable self defense.
The same lunatic breaks into my house, but not with a weapon, demanding access to my Doritos chips... Probably not a very good self defense situation.
So I guess it all depends on the circumstances in which the shooting happens.
I just hope that I am never put into that situation.
Uncle Buck,
In many areas (NOT all, but many), if someone breaks into your house and you end up shooting them in self-defense it's going to be hard for you to turn it into a "bad shoot" due to the Castle Doctrine laws. That's unless you do something pretty stupid (like shooting your mouth off) or obviously illegal (like reloading and shooting him after he's down on the floor and unconscious ala the OK pharmacist).
Where things get a little less clearcut is if you are in an area where there is no Castle Doctrine or in a situation where Castle Doctrine does not apply such as if you're outside your house.
The Harold Fish case is an example where two people met, neither were in their own residence and there were no witnesses. One attacked the other and was shot in self-defense. The police arrived on the scene to find a dead man who turned out to be unarmed and a live man with a gun. THAT is not going to be a clear cut case. Now anything that that the DA can use to make you look bad could make you look bad enough to cause you a LOT of expense & hassle and might even put you in jail.
In many areas (NOT all, but many), if someone breaks into your house and you end up shooting them in self-defense it's going to be hard for you to turn it into a "bad shoot" due to the Castle Doctrine laws. That's unless you do something pretty stupid (like shooting your mouth off) or obviously illegal (like reloading and shooting him after he's down on the floor and unconscious ala the OK pharmacist).
Where things get a little less clearcut is if you are in an area where there is no Castle Doctrine or in a situation where Castle Doctrine does not apply such as if you're outside your house.
The Harold Fish case is an example where two people met, neither were in their own residence and there were no witnesses. One attacked the other and was shot in self-defense. The police arrived on the scene to find a dead man who turned out to be unarmed and a live man with a gun. THAT is not going to be a clear cut case. Now anything that that the DA can use to make you look bad could make you look bad enough to cause you a LOT of expense & hassle and might even put you in jail.