Carry guns and modification.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd be interested in reviewing those laws that cover "concealed carry weapon modification" protections. In the same vein, I'd also like to know of any civil court cases that actually found for the plaintive in a case where justifiable shooting had been pre-determined by a criminal court. Of course, in this discussion we aren't likely to get that information in either case. It's simply opinion against opinion.

FWIW, if I were a defendent in a case where I had been criminally justified in a defensive shooting, any reasonable attorney would look at my net worth and personal liability insurance coverage and quickly decide that it wasn't worth their time and effort to pursue. Of course, this doesn't include California where, I've been told, goofier things do happen. Thankfully, I live far from there.
 
Bottom line -

If you use deadly force upon someone, and it is justified under the law, it doesn't matter if that force comes in the form of a ball bat, brick, or custom pistol. Justified is justified.

For YOUR safety and THOSE ARUOND YOU, I would say your "custom carry piece" should be able to be carried, bumped, manipulated, etc., safely, but beyond that, carry what you shoot well.

If you're not justified, your hung out, regardless of the tool.
 
Then cite those laws.
Click to expand...


Not the poster;

I can't cite any laws because I don't think there are any.

If introduced I would like to know what law was broken by having a sub 4.5# trigger on a 1911. My Ruger came with a surprisingly nice trigger. If it is not illegal then what is the relevance?

In my state (North Dakota) I am immune civil litigation for any use of force used in self defense.

12.1-05-07.2. Immunity from civil liability for justifiable use of force.
1. An individual who uses force as permitted under this chapter is immune from civil liability for the use of the force to the individual against whom force was used or to that individual's estate unless that individual is a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of official duties and the officer provided identification, if required, in accordance with any applicable law or warrant from a court, or if the individual using force knew or reasonably should have known that the individual was a law
enforcement officer.
2.The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs and disbursements incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from civil liability as provided in subsection 1
Click to expand...
The neighboring states have similar statues as do many other states.
 
Nanuk said:
If introduced I would like to know what law was broken by having a sub 4.5# trigger on a 1911. My Ruger came with a surprisingly nice trigger. If it is not illegal then what is the relevance?
Click to expand...
An act or omission need not be illegal to be considered negligence by a jury, and a wrongful death suit is a negligence case. The act or omission only has to be violate some duty of care that the defendant owes to the plaintiff, and thereby cause damages.
springer99 said:
I'd be interested in reviewing those laws that cover "concealed carry weapon modification" protections.
Click to expand...
You and me both. I'd not heard of any such new laws & I have my doubts about whether they exist.
springer99 said:
In the same vein, I'd also like to know of any civil court cases that actually found for the plaintive in a case where justifiable shooting had been pre-determined by a criminal court. Of course, in this discussion we aren't likely to get that information in either case.
Click to expand...
Then go do some research. OldMarksman gave you some case names earlier:
Cases? Well to cite a few, there are Florida v. Louis Alvarez, NY v. Magliano, Santibanes v. Tomball TX.
Click to expand...
Have you read those cases yet? If not, why should anyone spend any more time doing your research for you?

And the correct term is plaintiff. Plaintive is something entirely different.
springer99 said:
It's simply opinion against opinion.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. Some of the opinions expressed in this thread have been made by folks who make or made real-world livings in the practice of law. Others are born of simple ignorance.
springer99 said:
FWIW, if I were a defendent in a case where I had been criminally justified in a defensive shooting, any reasonable attorney would look at my net worth and personal liability insurance coverage and quickly decide that it wasn't worth their time and effort to pursue.. . . .
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know where you live or what the statutes are there, but in AR, a prevailing plaintiff can execute on both real and personal property. IOW, the winner can sell both your house and your bass boat right out from under you. And when the plaintiff's lawyer only gets paid on what he can collect, that lawyer will devote pretty significant time and energy into finding your assets.
 
springer99 said:
....It's simply opinion against opinion....
Click to expand...
However, again, all opinions are not equal. So we have the well considered opinions of some lawyers on a legal issue against the opinion plucked out of the air by some random stranger.

849ACSO said:
If you use deadly force upon someone, and it is justified under the law,...
Click to expand...
What the folks who keep spouting that nonsense keep forgetting is that they aren't the ones who decide it their act of violence against another was justified. That decision will be made by others -- the DA, the grand jury, or, if you're unlucky, the jury at your trial. Your act of violence is not justified unless/until they decide not to prosecute or convict you.

Nanuk said:
...In my state (North Dakota) I am immune civil litigation for any use of force used in self defense....
Click to expand...
Those civil immunity laws apply only if your act of violence is justified. But how will that be decided?

A decision of a DA not to prosecute, a decision by a grand jury not to indict, or an acquittal by a trial jury is not an affirmative determination that you acted in justified self defense. That threshold condition required for civil immunity to attach remains subject to dispute. So if your justification is challenged, you will still be in court to establish that you were justified.
 
Originally Posted by 849ACSO: If you use deadly force upon someone, and it is justified under the law, it doesn't matter if that force comes in the form of a ball bat, brick, or custom pistol.
Click to expand...
That's true, keeping possible weapons charges out of the equation, if it is properly decided that it was justified by law.

But that has nothing to do with the original question, which was
Very knowledgeable people,including several moderators,advised it may be a bad idea in a post-SD shooting courtroom to have aftermarket trigger parts....My main question.I decided to order a S+W M+P 9c. Because I intended to install APEX forward set and lighter trigger,I ordered the M+P with the thumb safety...
If I put in the spring for a 5 lb pull,and check it,am I OK with the APEX parts?
Click to expand...

I think the informed consensus here is somewhere between "most likely yes" and "yes"....

...which means simply that we believe that that particular modification would be unlikely to create insurmountable problems in court.

But in the discussion , both here and in similar ones that have come up in years past, the ways in which trigger modifications and/or the use of guns originally equipped with very light triggers can affect trial outcomes have been discussed.

Those trial outcomes are what determine whether a shooting was justified.

Justified is justified.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you think you are saying with that.
 
Those civil immunity laws apply only if your act of violence is justified. But how will that be decided?

A decision of a DA not to prosecute, a decision by a grand jury not to indict, or an acquittal by a trial jury is not an affirmative determination that you acted in justified self defense. That threshold condition required for civil immunity to attach remains subject to dispute. So if your justification is challenged, you will still be in court to establish that you were justified.
Click to expand...

Fortunately I live in a very conservative part of the country. One thing many people fail to consider is that when someone uses violence or the threat of violence against another, it is almost never their first rodeo. The police are going to know the career criminal very quickly, maybe even upon arrival at the scene.

I spent the last 3 decades in LE at the local (Texas)and federal level. In my experience the cases that get mirky are the domestics.

It is very difficult to successfully present a negligence case on an intentional shooting. Anytime you use force to defend yourself, the act of self defense is an affirmative defense.
 
Apex mod to lighten/smoothen trigger pull should be OK. I think, this kind of trigger modification only matters if the pistol goes off unintentionally.
If trigger is pulled intentionally in self defense, I do not think it matters if the trigger pull weight is 1lbs or 5lbs. The question maybe is on satisfying the criteria for the use of a firearm in self-defense.
........... BUT I am not a lawyer.
 
If trigger is pulled intentionally in self defense, I do not think it matters if the trigger pull weight is 1lbs or 5lbs. The question maybe is on satisfying the criteria for the use of a firearm in self-defense.
Click to expand...

I think this is true IF the trigger is pulled intentionally and ALL PARTIES stipulate it was intentional. I would not expect a prosecuting attorney, or a civil attorney, to necessarily stipulate to that just because the shooter says it is true.

What you know to be true and what you can prove to be true in court are different things.
 
Nanuk said:
Frank Ettin said:
Those civil immunity laws apply only if your act of violence is justified. But how will that be decided?

A decision of a DA not to prosecute, a decision by a grand jury not to indict, or an acquittal by a trial jury is not an affirmative determination that you acted in justified self defense. That threshold condition required for civil immunity to attach remains subject to dispute. So if your justification is challenged, you will still be in court to establish that you were justified.
Click to expand...

Fortunately I live in a very conservative part of the country. One thing many people fail to consider is that when someone uses violence or the threat of violence against another, it is almost never their first rodeo. The police are going to know the career criminal very quickly, maybe even upon arrival at the scene.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but none of that answers the question that Frank posed. I've looked at the statute that you cited in Westlaw, and there are exactly zero reported decisions on it.

So the question remains: If one is involved in a shooting, how will it be determined that one's conduct was "as permitted under this chapter," so as to trigger the civil immunity statute? As Frank pointed out, a prosecutor's decision not to file charges, or a grand jury's decision not to indict, may not be sufficient to trigger civil immunity.
Nanuk said:
I spent the last 3 decades in LE at the local (Texas)and federal level. In my experience the cases that get mirky are the domestics.

It is very difficult to successfully present a negligence case on an intentional shooting. Anytime you use force to defend yourself, the act of self defense is an affirmative defense.
Click to expand...
Yeah, domestics are messy in just about every imaginable way.

As for any difficulty in presenting a negligence case, I'd say that depends on how one "frames the issue." If the claim is "Defendant was negligent in shooting the Plaintiff," that's one thing. OTOH, "the Defendant was negligent in even electing to carry a pistol with a 2.5# trigger pull," that's an entirely different claim.

I haven't done a nationwide search on SD and affirmative defenses, but I suspect that it's an aff def in most places. There are at least a handful of jurisdictions where it's a plain old defense, though. AR is one of them.
 
I think this is true IF the trigger is pulled intentionally and ALL PARTIES stipulate it was intentional. I would not expect a prosecuting attorney, or a civil attorney, to necessarily stipulate to that just because the shooter says it is true.

What you know to be true and what you can prove to be true in court are different things
Click to expand...

Negligent homicide is lesser than premeditated murder.

I wonder if the 1911 used by the off duty cop to stop the trolley square shooting had a light trigger. Did Lance Thomas have a trigger job done on any of his guns?

For every case where it mattered we come come up with 10 that it did not. The vast majority of cases where mods have been an issue have been cases where someone was trying to beat a murder rap, or they did indeed fire a gun unintentionally (negligently).

I think this whole issue has developed into legend with the help of the internet.
 
pilpens said:
...If trigger is pulled intentionally in self defense, I do not think it matters if the trigger pull weight is 1lbs or 5lbs.....
Click to expand...
Why do you think that? Why do you think that what you think has even a passing acquaintance with reality? People think all sorts of things which wind up not being true.

pilpens said:
.... BUT I am not a lawyer.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, Spats McGee and I are lawyers.

Nanuk said:
...Negligent homicide is lesser than premeditated murder....
Click to expand...
But it is still a felony. And many prosecutors would prefer getting a conviction for involuntary manslaughter to an acquittal.

Nanuk said:
...For every case where it mattered we come come up with 10 that it did not....
Click to expand...
Whatever the odds might be, you can't know for sure before the fact whether or not it will matter in your particular critical incident -- unless you did not do the modification.
 
Last edited:
I once had a conversation with a friend who is a lawyer. I forget the exact details of what we were discussing but I argued that I would be in the right and would be able to argue effectively, from a Constitutional view point, that I was right and the law in question was invalid.

He agreed I was right.

He told me if I wanted to test it I must first violate the law in question.

Then I must allow myself to be convicted under that law and be prepared to go to federal prison.

He would then appeal the conviction on the merits of the argument.

If I won it he guessed it would cost me about $250K in legal fees. If I lost it would cost me about $250K in legal fees and I would likely spend ten years in federal custody.

My point: even if you are right anything that becomes an issue in court is going to cost you. It may simply be financial. It may be enough to sway a jury and result in a conviction.
 
Posted by pilpens: I think, this kind of trigger modification only matters if the pistol goes off unintentionally.
If trigger is pulled intentionally in self defense, I do not think it matters if the trigger pull weight is 1lbs or 5lbs.
Click to expand...
Okay, let's assume that the evidence is clear that a shooting was intentional.

The next question is whether it was lawfully justified.

Without sound stage footage from multiple vantage points, that has to be determined on the basis of fragmentary and incomplete evidence and testimony that may be wrong or contradictory.

Any evidence that night pertain to the shooter's state of mind--to whether or not the shooter might be predisposed to violence-- could well be relevant.

Firearms modifications might be made to appear to fall into that category.

The OP's APEX kit? Not by itself, I think, not by a long shot. Were it to be brought up, there are persons who would qualify as expert witnesses who could testify on that. see Frank's earlier post.

But a hair trigger on a firearm with a muzzle engraving that says "smile and wait for flash"?

Oh, yes.
 
Please tell me if I am wrong to help me understand better:
1. So, "intentionally pulled the trigger in defense" --- Is the pistol modification of no issue if every party agree that the shooting was intentional and was in self defense.
2. If the opposite side argues that it was not intentional; instead it was an accidental shooting (not in self defense) --- Is this when the pistol modification could lead to more trouble?
Thanks.

edited:
Thanks Oldmarksman, I am beginning to understand.
 
Please tell me if I am wrong to help me understand better:
1. So, "intentionally pulled the trigger in defense" --- Is the pistol modification of no issue if every party agree that the shooting was intentional and was in self defense.
2. If the opposite side argues that it was not intentional; instead it was an accidental shooting (not in self defense) --- Is this when the pistol modification could lead to more trouble?
Click to expand...

That is at least partially the concern and the one I intended to raise

However keep in mind that deciding if a shooting was justified is not always simple. The evidence is seldom perfectly clear and cut and dried. OldMarksman has raised the concern that certain modifications may be presented to show state of mind (he shot him because he was just waiting for the chance).

Let me give a scenario. A shooter stops an aggressive attacker. The person shot happens to be a minority. The situation is murky (virtually all shootings are) but is defensible as justified if things are as the shooter says they were. The prosecutor has a slightly different "read" of the evidence - a jury will decide.

Now let's compare two shooters:

Shooter A was of the same minority and was using a single action pistol handed down by his grandfather.

Shooter B was white. He was dressed in KKK robes and carrying heavily modified "evil" black gun.

I know I threw in confounding variables - they are there to help illustrate my point. Absent clear evidence that a shooting was justified or not (and there will seldom be clear evidence) a prosecutor may attempt to argue state of mind of the attacker. A lot of factors can be used and one of those could be a modified gun (especially if those modifications are in poor taste).

Make sure when you modify a firearm you would be comfortable explaining to a jury why the modifications were made.
 
Our lawyers explain this over and over:

1. If you are charged, it is not a 'good shoot' and all kinds of things will be brought up. Plenty of evidence for that.

2. Even if no criminal charges are brought up, depending on local laws - there could be a civil case and again all kinds of things will be brought up.
 
Posted by pilpens: 1. So, "intentionally pulled the trigger in defense" --- Is the pistol modification of no issue if every party agree that the shooting was intentional and was in self defense.
Click to expand...
If every party agrees that he shooting was in justified self defense, the case would not be brought to trial.


2. If the opposite side argues that it was not intentional; instead it was an accidental shooting (not in self defense) --- Is this when the pistol modification could lead to more trouble?
Click to expand...
I think you mean "unintentional".

Yes, that could lead to trouble, both in a criminal case and in a civil case.

But the pistol modification could also lead to trouble if the state, or a civil plaintiff if the shooter has not already been tried and acquitted in a criminal trial in a state with civil immunity, were to contend that an intentional shooting was not justifiable as lawful self defense. That's where the question of whether the shooter may have been predisposed to violence comes in.

Keep in mind that that issue can be made difficult by much more than a pistol modification--prior e-maisl or social media posts, bumper stickers that say "Protected by Smith & Wesson", the appearance of the firearm, a threatening t-shirt, and other things can create problems. So can a PowerPoint slide in one's file that says "be polite to everyone, but have a plan to kill them".

Far fetched? That last one came up in real trials.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top