Carry guns and modification.

[OldMarksman]

That's OK, I'll wait for the court case to be cited. Other than that, it's just opinion.

That you are may not be aware of some fact or other does not make it "just an opinion".

Granted, I will agree that sometimes attorneys, like all normal people, can and do say silly things.

Nothing silly about it. There has been an injury. Proving that it was more likely unintentional the not can result in much greater compensation for damages. A modified trigger opens the door, and then other experts provide objective evidence about the physiological effects of stress on fine motor skills. And about how people who swear up and down that they keep their fingers off triggers don't always really do so.

In the end though, it was just noise that is quickly dispensed with.

Dispensed with in your mind, maybe, but "deep pocket" police departments have mitigated the risk by specifying long heavy triggers.

This subject is covered at length in MAG-20 Classroom, Armed Citizen's Rules of Engagement. There is a lot to be covered in 20 hours, and if this were not an important issue, it would never have made the list of subjects.

Several major cities had so many claims against them, most of which were settled out of court, in the days of DA revolvers that they modified the guns so act they could not be fired single action. There is no difference between the concept of an unintentional discharge with a cocked revolver and one with a semiauto with a hair trigger. Both resulted in new weapon specifications, the latter being the reason for the Glock New York Trigger.

That has nothing to do about philosophies in NYC--it is the amount of treasure in the "deep pockets". Other cities have done the same thing.

That risk is a major reason for not lightening the pull weight of the trigger on firearm carried for defense, and it is a very good reason for selecting a revolver that cannot be fired single action. My SP-101 has been so modified. The Centennial and the new Kimber K-6 are designed that way.

Cases? Well to cite a few, there are Florida v. Louis Alvarez, NY v. Magliano, Santibanes v. Tomball TX.

The specifics of those are completely irrelevant. One thing I have learned over the years is that anyone who attempts to argue a position by saying "show me a case..." knows next to nothing about the litigation process or risk management.

Speaking of risk management--legal liability is but one issue here. There is also the little matter of safety.

 

[springer99]

I thought the issue here was legal liability, not safety. Thread drift?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Other than that, it's just opinion....

But all opinions are not equal. A physician's opinion on a medical issue, a physicist's opinion on a question of cosmology, and a lawyer's opinion on a question of law will warrant more serious consideration than your opinion on any of those topics.

 

[Lohman446]

I thought the issue here was legal liability, not safety. Thread drift?

If you have a modified trigger that is lighter than stock, lighter than the FBI uses, and lighter than the vast majority of law enforcement officers use and you insist you intentionally shot the aggressor do you believe they are simply going to take you at your word.

Do you believe there is A CHANCE that the prosecuting attorney will argue, over your objections, that you did not have justification for the shoot, you knew you did not have justification, and yet, due to a firearm that you modified with considered forethought, accidentally shot the aggressor?

Do you believe this chance is higher or lower with a modified firearm?

We have no experimental testing of the theory (even case law is not going to be large enough of a sample size). To some degree the answer is going to be opinion (some more qualified than others). If I opine that the sky is green it is reasonable for you to discount my opinion.

 

[Sharkbite]

you can swear up and down that you intended to fire the shots, and the plaintiff can contend othersise, introduce evidence that an unitentional shot was more likely than not, and prevail with a prepondereance of the evidence.

you insist you intentionally shot the aggressor do you believe they are simply going to take you at your word.

The context of this thread is modified gun in DEFENSIVE roles. In a self defense shooting you will positively state that you MEANT to shoot. By definition it is an intentional shooting

 

[Snyper]

Do you believe there is A CHANCE that the prosecuting attorney will argue, over your objections, that you did not have justification for the shoot, you knew you did not have justification, and yet, due to a firearm that you modified with considered forethought, accidentally shot the aggressor?

Do you believe this chance is higher or lower with a modified firearm?

He'd be a pretty lame prosecutor to try and claim someone's gun modification caused them to point it and pull the trigger. Let's try to be realistic.

In all these discussions on the topic, no one has ever shown an actual case where using reloads or a legally "modified" firearms has had an influence on the outcome of the case.

 

[Lohman446]

The context of this thread is modified gun in DEFENSIVE roles. In a self defense shooting you will positively state that you MEANT to shoot. By definition it is an intentional shooting

If I shoot someone I am going to argue it was intentional and it was justified. The prosecutor is not required to accept me at my word that it was intentional. Further if he can argue convincingly that it was not intentional it will further the argument it was not justified.

Let's say we have three individuals involved in a defensive shooting with similar circumstances. Individual A is using a Glock with a modified "New York" trigger (it actually increases the pull weight). Individual B is using a Glock in unmodified state. Individual C is using a Glock with a lightened trigger pull.

All three individuals are involved in a shooting where they were on public property, had no legal necessity to retreat, and are threatened by a man wielding a bludgeoning weapon. For the sake of the argument the aggressor has a criminal record of minor battery that none of the individuals are aware of. None of the individuals actually have injuries from being struck. All three individuals claim to self defense hinge on the argument that they were in fear of imminent and great bodily harm.

I think there is an argument that the prosecutor may make the weapon modifications an issue with individual A and C. With A he may argue the shooter was not confident in his abilities and training and strengthened the trigger pull because of it. The argument would go that a properly trained shooter would have avoided this shooting and thus there is question if the shooting was justifiable.

The opposite argument is taken with shooter C. Of course he says the shooting was justified, says the prosecutor, otherwise he would have no legal defense. The fact is the shooting was not justifiable and shooter C was brandishing his firearm in an attempt to deescalate a situation that was never going to turn deadly. Due to stress and BECAUSE OF THE LIGHTENED trigger shooter C accidentally fired his handgun and killed the victim. This would not have happened had the gun been factory. Why was the gun not in factory settings? Was it because shooter C was waiting for his chance? The shooting was never justifiable in fact it was an accident caused by his modifications.

There seems to be an assertion that saying the shooting was justifiable (and intentional) is going to be met without resistance or suspicion. I said it was intentional it must be.

The counterargument is that there is a higher chance of that the prosecutor does not accept the shooter at his word if the weapon (especially the trigger) is modified than if it is stock.

Are we denying the counter argument?

One may decide that risk is worth it but to deny the chances of the defense being more difficult because of a modified trigger seems reckless to me.

 

[Lohman446]

He'd be a pretty lame prosecutor to try and claim someone's gun modification caused them to point it and pull the trigger. Let's try to be realistic.

Yeh. Those being ordered by elected officials (around here the district attorney is elected) never do lame or questionable things. 100% faith in our political system and politicians.

 

[OldMarksman]

The context of this thread is modified gun in DEFENSIVE roles.

Yes.

In a self defense shooting you will positively state that you MEANT to shoot.

Yes, you will.

By definition it is an intentional shooting

You will have admitted as much in criminal court, but that won't matter in civil court.

Look at it this way.

In a criminal trial, you will admit to having shot someone --on purpose, and you will contend that you were justified in doing so.

The state may disagree on the question of justification. In all states except one, as I recall, they would have to have a unanimous verdict that you were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of an unlawful act.

In a civil case--in a different court, with a different judge and different jury, under different rules,with different rules of evidence--a plaintiff may claim that you unintentionally shot someone and are liable for damages.

You and your insurance company (and it is your insurance policy that would be at the end the rainbow for the plaintiff, unless you happen to have a lot of money) will claim that the act was intentional and necessary.

The plaintiff can prevail by simply persuading the jury (a majority, in most states) that it was more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence) that the shooting had been the result of a hair trigger inadvertently pressed by a person under great stress.

In that venue, your contention that you fired intentionally would not prove anything. That the encounter may have started out because of a situation that might have led to a self defense shooting would not matter.

 

[OldMarksman]

He'd be a pretty lame prosecutor to try and claim someone's gun modification caused them to point it and pull the trigger. Let's try to be realistic.

What brought that up?

 

[HiBC]

As the OP,I understand and agree that light trigger pulls are a problem on a carry gun.
I really had no intention to ask if a 2 1/2 lb pull was OK. I don't want that.

Suppose our expert witness armorer is OK with a 1911 trigger with over .018 sear engagement and a 4 1/2 lb pull. Its the standard.

If I buy an economical Philippine 1911,and it has an OK ,usable 6 lb pull,but the parts just look like they came from Harbor Freight.They look pretty much as cast.I did not have confidence in the long term durability of those parts.So I might use Harrison,or Nowlin,or EGW,or Ed Brown,or Wilson,or C+S parts..A matched set,"Duty and carry"

I pull those cast parts,and replace them with the quality of parts that come in a $2500 semi-custom gun. Lets say I get lucky,the parts drop in with good angles,.020 engagement.I do not alter them with my Dremel.I install a Colt sear spring.Trigger pull gage says 4 3/4 lbs..Test firing proves trigger reliable.

I modified the gun to improve quality.

Someone mentioned modding a DA revolver to DA only.That is a modification to the trigger.

My initial question was about putting "Duty and carry" APEX parts in an M+P.
I do not want less than 4 1/2 lbs.I'll probably put in the spring that (I hope) gives a 5 lb plus pull. Duty and Carry,not "Competition Only"

The gun will have a thumb safety,the trigger flipper safety,a 5 lb trigger,and I assume over 1/8 in trigger travel.Not only that,I will use quality,well designed holsters.

It will be well on the "Safer side" of our 1911 4 1/2 lb trigger.It is no more likely to fire "unintentionally" than a box stock quality service pistol,our 1911,for example.

That is what I am trying to learn about.

All discussion of the "hair trigger" might be interesting,but for me,it is distracting noise.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The gun will have a thumb safety,the trigger flipper safety,a 5 lb trigger,and I assume over 1/8 in trigger travel.Not only that,I will use quality,well designed holsters.

It will be well on the "Safer side" of our 1911 4 1/2 lb trigger.It is no more likely to fire "unintentionally" than a box stock quality service pistol,our 1911,for example....

I know someone who is a police instructor and armorer and who would qualify as an expert witness. He will state that a 4 to 5 pound trigger is appropriate for a service handgun (single action or striker fired) and that he will not set a trigger lighter than 4 pounds. If I used one of my 1911s with a 4.5 pound trigger, he will be testifying for me. If someone used a 1911 (or another handgun) with a 3 pound trigger, he will be testifying for the DA. His testimony will be something to the effect that as an expert he would consider carrying a gun with a trigger lighter than 4 pound to be reckless.

 

[HiBC]

Thank you,Frank.

 

[Lohman446]

I think I am going to modify my stance a little on this.

As long as I can point to some manufacturer who sold me the parts specifically as "duty and carry" parts I should be able to hold that I had every reason to believe they were appropriate for... well duty and carry.

In the civil liability issue I am going to assume I can make the same argument and at least shift some of the responsibility (should there be some).

 

[OldMarksman]

Suppose our expert witness armorer is OK with a 1911 trigger with over .018 sear engagement and a 4 1/2 lb pull. Its the standard.

If I buy an economical Philippine 1911,and it has an OK ,usable 6 lb pull,but the parts just look like they came from Harbor Freight.They look pretty much as cast.

I pull those parts,and replace them with the quality of parts that come in a $2500 semi-custom gun. Lets say I get lucky,the parts drop in with good angles,.020 engagement.I do not alter them with my Dremel.I install a Colt sear spring.Trigger pull gage says 4 3/4 lbs..Test firing proves trigger reliable.

I modified the gun to improve quality.

That is an excellent question!

The different way of getting the same performance shouldn't make a difference, to reasonable, knowledgeable people.

BUT--should the modification become known, it could give a plaintiff the opportunity to bring up the fact of the modification. Should the plaintiff make a point of that, the defense could certainly refute it, but the defense would really not want to be in the position of having to do so.

The plaintiff really not need say anything about the modification, once it has made known to the jurors.

For those reasons, the defendant would probably be better served by setting out with a better firearm to begin with.

Someone mentioned modding a DA revolver to DA only.That is a modification to the trigger.

Actually, it is a modification to the hammer. It is done to reduce exposure to accusations of an unintentional discharge.

My initial question was about putting "Duty and carry" APEX parts in an M+P.
I do not want less than 4 1/2 lbs.I'll probably put in the spring that (I hope) gives a 5 lb plus pull. Duty and Carry,not "Competition Only"

The gun will have a thumb safety,the trigger flipper safety,a 5 lb trigger,and I assume over 1/8 in trigger travel.Not only that,I will use quality,well designed holsters.

It will be well on the "Safer side" of our 1911 4 1/2 lb trigger.

That is what I am trying to learn about.

MY M&P 9c had a terrible trigger, and I looked into putting in an APEX kit before I sold the gun.

I believe that comparison between the pull weights of a 1911 and of the M&P would never come up--too "inside baseball" for a trial jury.

What is more likely to come up is any marked difference between the stock pull weight and that on your gun--the less, the better for you.

Would the plaintiff's witness describing the weapon ever say anything about there having been a modification kit installed? I really do not know.

But if he or she did, that would open the door to the defense attorney introducing an expert witness on the acceptability of the APEX "Duty and Carry" kit.

Expensive, but perhaps necessary.

When we rode this merry-go-round five years ago next month, Frank Ettin said this:

My 1911s are all set at about 4.5 to 5 pounds, and I know at least one police armorer/instructor who could testify as an expert witness that (1) in his expert opinion a 1911 of between 4 and 5 pounds is satisfactory for a service weapon; (2) that as an armorer he will not set a trigger on a service weapon below 4.5 pounds; and (3) using a 1911 with a trigger less than 4 pounds is reckless.

Whoops, I see that Frank just said that.

Personally, all things considered, I would choose your approach to carrying an M&P with the trigger that came on mine.

 

[HiBC]

I think Apex is recognized and reputable.

It is still my responsibility to own and use a trigger pull gage and maintain the performance.

If my 5 lb spring gets old,and my trigger drops below 4 lbs,...it WAS "Duty and carry" but its not,anymore.

If we are in court,the expert witness will be less concerned about the label on the pkg,and more about "What is the trigger pull?"

And,I know,life is not fair,but,for myself,I choose to NOT use parts that say "For competition only,not recommended for duty or carry"..EVEN if I can spring it to a 5 lb pull.

I'm willing to risk "Duty and carry" PLUS I assume my own responsibility to maintain the performance to duty and carry spec.

 

[Spats McGee]

If the case at hand involves an unintentional discharge, that will certainly be an issue. In a self defense shooting where i INTENDED to fire the shots in question, i dont see that as a germain issue.

As the evidentiary gatekeeper, it is the judge who presides over a trial who gets to decide what is germane and what is not. If there's a disagreement as to whether or not a certain piece of evidence is relevant or not, each side will have a chance to argue that point.

That's OK, I'll wait for the court case to be cited. Other than that, it's just opinion. Granted, I will agree that sometimes attorneys, like all normal people, can and do say silly things. In the end though, it was just noise that is quickly dispensed with.

As Frank has pointed out, all opinions are not equal. I don't tell my mechanic how to flush my transmission and he doesn't tell me how to structure a summary judgment motion.

Three quick items on the citation of cases:

(1) OldMarksman has named a few cases. You should read them.

(2) Even if there were no cases directly on point, it's important to understand that one of the things that lawyers do is extract legal principles from (sometimes seemingly) unrelated cases, and then apply those principles to "the case at bar." So even if there isn't a case directly on point with the fact situation that we're looking at, past cases give us an idea of how future courts may rule on an issue.

(3) While a citation to a case exactly like the one at issue would be nice, I often see the "show me the case" request from folks who really have no idea how our judicial reporting system works. To use the topic of this thread as an example, in order for there to be a judicial opinion for us to look at, here's roughly what would have to happen:

1. There has to be a shooting;
2. In which the SD shooter used a modified gun;
3. The SD shooter has to claim self-defense;
4. The SD shooter has to be charged &/or sued;
5. There has to have been an evidentiary fight over testimony or evidence about the modifications;
6. In the criminal case:
   1. The SD shooter has to lose the first case (because the State doesn't usually get to appeal in a criminal case);
   2. The SD shooter has to appeal;
   3. One side or the other has to raise the aforementioned evidentiary fight as one of his Points on Appeal; and
   4. The appellate court has to actually reach that issue and talk about it.
7. In the civil case:
   1. There has to be an evidentiary fight over the modifications;
   2. Someone has to appeal;
   3. One side or the other has to raise the aforementioned evidentiary fight as a Point on Appeal; and
   4. The appellate court has to reach that issue and discuss it.
8. And finally, the appellate court has to publish the opinion in some form and place that we who are interested in it can find it.

An SD shooter who chooses to carry a modified weapon may or may not be able to justify those modifications to the satisfaction of a judge and jury. They are, nonetheless, one more variable for your attorney to have to consider, and may require one more expert to testify at your trial(s). Experts are not cheap, either.

 

[Boncrayon]

Carry guns and modification

There are new laws that protect concealed carry modifications for self defense as long as it remains lawful in the integrity of the firearm.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There are new laws that protect concealed carry modifications for self defense.

Then cite those laws.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There are new laws that protect concealed carry modifications for self defense as long as it remains lawful in the integrity of the firearm.

Since you edited your post, I'll ask again. Cite the laws.

In fact, I doubt that you can. I doubt that you know what you are talking about.