Carry guns and modification.

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior
It would be unlikely defense counsel would advise you taking the stand in the first place, which makes scenario even murkier (and your argument stronger as a result).
Actually, if the defendant is claiming self defense he will often need to testify.

As Lisa Steele wrote in her article for lawyers on handling a self defense case (see post 81 for links to her article):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa Steele
...Often, the defendant will need to testify in order to establish his subjective belief about the threat and need to respond defensively....

Fair points. We both know that can be hazardous.

 

[OldMarksman]

That's what every statement I've made has said.

Well, you have had me confused, and you continue to confuse me about what it is that you trying to say.

...I plainly stated that I'm certainly not advocating modifying a pistol used for SD in such a way that it's UNSAFE, meaning could go off if bumped, dropped, etc., however, REASONABLE modifications made to make it easier to use efficiently by the end user shouldn't be considered "damning" in deciding whether or not to make your pistol more efficient/easier to use....

Someone else, with the qualifications of an expert, will explain what is "reasonable".

A panel of people who are not experts will take that explanation and decide what is "damning".

 

[briandg]

I'll step in here, and point out a couple things that have already been said. First, the only way that you will get in trouble for modifications is if they know that the gun was modified. Be discrete, make the thing look like an ordinary old handgun that anyone would have, and don't let the information make it into the report that you were using a $3,000 custom with the words live free or die on the slide.

another point is that seriously, you aren't running a course timed by fractions of a second, maybe you shouldn't be carrying a heavily modified gun in the first place, it probably isn't necessary for a street or home shooting scenario. I believe that you should carry a stock pistol. Stock ammo.

If you get the wrong cop, the wrong target, the wrong DA and jury, or even a shyster lawyer who goes after you in a wrongful death suit, these things are like viagra, but the most important thing is to just not make the bad shot, and don't draw attention to yourself.

People are going to go on and on about how these problems NEVER happen, but that's false. Just look around you at the police shootings, and how many of them end badly.

There was a cop recently who had something engraved on his rifle, something like "watch the birdy" or whatever. and that little engraving offered evidence that he was trigger happy. There have been many suits involving modifications.

A suit that I am aware of involved a guy shooting a hobo with a 10mm magnum, a clear case of overkill and clear evidence that he was a psychotic killer with a grudge against the poor. The fact that he was also in a place frequented by the underprivileged, that is shunned by most people, was also used against him. He was cleared after a long trial.

a suit that I am aware of involved the accidental death of a kid at a shooting range. It was eventually found that a shooter who was on line at the time was using cast lead reloads, shooting at a range that wasn't fully up to "reasonable standards," with a heavily modified handgun, most of the modifications were either home done or done by small gunsmiths. there were lots of things against the guy, most importantly, he lied over and over. When the lawyers proved that it was his gun and that it doubled as he ran the course, he and the range were hit with what is probably over ten million dollars in current currency. Today, that judgement may have reached twenty million, but there's no telling what would happen at all.

You can get in trouble, but the chances are so slim that it's not something that should factor into saving your life, do what you must, do it properly, and prepare to take the lumps that fate can hand out.

What will get you in trouble at this time is your victim, your tactics, your race, your behavior and your beliefs. There's no need to look at your gun and try to make a case that you are crazy, as has been said, all it takes now is to shoot the wrong guy, say the wrong things, have a bad reputation on facebook, etc.

A guy who I knew wayy back when had a smiley face painted on the end of his 1911. He loved the 1911 with big fmj rounds because they killed so good and looked so awesome, and he told everyone he could about how it would kill who it hit. He was going to engrave the slide with "bye bye, *******!" and was planning on creating suitable grips with engraving on them.

this pasty white guy, a nazi sympathizer kept nazi and holocaust memorabilia. he would have an online presence that would make the world hate him on sight. Picture him wandering lost in ferguson or some other hot spot. even for a clean, irreproachable shoot, he would be in giant piles of maggot laden feces if the public at large even so much as looked at his facebook account and find out that he hated jews, black people, and punks who bothered him.you have to be careful and think.

 

[Lohman446]

Sharkbite: in law enforcement if a suspect said it was ok because X, Y, Z and X, Y, and Z were not perfectly clear did you just take that suspect at his or her word? Knowing a civilian shoot was justified and proving it are far different things.

 

[849ACSO]

REASONABLE modifications made to make it easier to use efficiently by the end user shouldn't be considered "damning" in deciding whether or not to make your pistol more efficient/easier to use....

That was a statement to the gun owner, not a statement about the modification as viewed by an expert, the state, or the jury. Again, you bear the burden for you modifications.

Someone else, with the qualifications of an expert, will explain what is "reasonable".

A panel of people who are not experts will take that explanation and decide what is "damning".

I believe that's what I said right here:

Just so we're clear, and there's no confusion about what's "reasonable", I completely understand that reasonableness will ultimately (if it goes this far)be determined by a jury of your peers. It will likely be with the aid of the state, the defendant and expert witnesses injecting experience, opinion and technical information into the equation.

 

[TimSr]

I guess my non-lawyer mind is struggling to wrap itself around this thread.

I was a LEO and have been a use of force trainer for longer then i care to admit so i do have a basic understanding of the subject. The actual Lawyers here seem to be saying that somehow my statement to the court that...

1. I shot that guy
2. I had to shoot that guy, because X,Y,Z
3. I absolutely MEANT to shoot that guy

Somehow there can be doubt cast upon those basic statements?

I guess my understanding of the "castle doctrine" and the "Stand your ground" laws lead me to beleive that a positive defense to the shooting (assuming it WAS justified) would protect the defender from this silliness.

The have the opposing councel claim i did NOT mean to shoot the guy that i have stated under oath that i fully intended to shoot reaks of STUPIDITY.

It sounds like a childs game of "yes, i did"..."No, you didnt".

Some of these threads spiral out in the bizarre in order to maintain an "I'm right and you're wrong" appearance until they get locked.

I truly would love to sit in and observe a trail where the defendant is arguing the he deliberating shot someone, and the prosecution is arguing that it was an accident.

It's true that law enforcement are not lawyers, even though they enforce criminal law every day. It's also true that many lawyer have no experience in practicing criminal law.

I will not be making any major decisions about my self defense weapon (or ammo) based on fringe theories of how those decisions could be contorted into some kind of mental deficiency by an imaginary renegade prosecutor with a wild imagination, operating under an insane judge. If we ever get to that point, no defense will justify a self defense shooting.

 

[849ACSO]

I will not be making any major decisions about my self defense weapon (or ammo) based on fringe theories of how those decisions could be contorted into some kind of mental deficiency by an imaginary renegade prosecutor with a wild imagination, operating under an insane judge. If we ever get to that point, no defense will justify a self defense shooting.

That's been the underlying theme to my points. If you want to make a reasonable mod to your gun, by all means, do so, but understand you bear that burden later.

It's true that law enforcement are not lawyers, even though they enforce criminal law every day. It's also true that many lawyer have no experience in practicing criminal law.

Another statement that, in MY EXPERIENCE, speaks volumes.

 

[HiBC]

OP here.
I've been shooting and studying firearms for over 50 years.
I spent 30 years in the machine trades.
I was a moldmaker.That implies an attitude about workmanship,skill,precision,mechanical aptitude,etc.
I've also made parts that are in satellites,ballistic missles,landing gear for commercial aircraft,all sorts of military criticalparts that I wasn't even told what they were for.
But I have spent years making parts that peoples lives depended on.
I havealso made from scratch some very intricate unobtainable firearms parts.
I have access to a nice small machine shop.
I seldom buy a complete firearm.I build them.I have the Kuhnhausens,I have the specialized 1911 tools.
I've also said "Not good enough" and ordered expensive parts the second time.
The latest successful project? From an old first gen Caspian double stack frame,($100) and a take off- open gun top end(donated) emerged an open class,comped,slide mounted mini red dot 38 super that will be use in 3 gun matches.It runs like a sewing machine and is quite accurate.(Side note:Frame dust cover was warped in heat treat about .030 sideways.Bad drag on the slide.I poured the dust cover full of Cerro-Safe for support,then,in the spirit of "Nothing to lose,its junk the way it is" I picked up a Dead Blow hammer,and boldly smote it repeatedly.If it had gone wrong,I'd be out $100.It went right.Frame centered and straight!! )

I wanted a light weight,relatively inexpensive,reliable,effective carry gun.I live in Colorado.I choose to comply with our state 15 round max law for my carry gun. I accept 9 mm is adequate.I'm just not a Glock guy.
I watched Miculeks comparison of the XD,S+W M+P,and Glock.

The M+P feels "At home" in my hand.
The M+P seems a reasonable choice.They have a reputation about the trigger.
Apex seems to be a solution.
I'm asking the questions because ,while I do know a thing or two about firearms,I'm not so sharp about courtrooms.I've stayed out of them,mostly.

There is far more to being a CCW holder than picking the tool and hitting a target.

This forum,the staff and expertise here are a great resource for us.For me.

To Frank Ettin,Old Marksman,Spats,and the rest THANK YOU!!
You have been a great help.
I think this discussion gives many others who are accepting the responsibility of carrying some good stuff to consider.It may be a wake up for some.

To some of this tenacious argument...A recurring theme is "Should be""
What "Should be"

Reminds me of equally passionate discussion on being in a pot legal state,and pot and firearms.Lots of "Should be"."Not fair",etc.

I can make up my own "Should be".

But I am interested in what IS.

To the knowledgable folks who helped me,thank you.I appreciate your time.

And,no,I won't argue with you.If I knew the answer,I would not ask the question.

 

[849ACSO]

For God's sake, don't use one of them "home made" guns for self defense.......

 

[HiBC]

I have carried my Randall.Its a darn good handgun.I'll likely carry it again.

I may someday build something close to an IPSC open gun,and under the right circumstances,choose it .

I was just told of an anecdote about an IPSC shooter in Florida who came upon a scene od four bad guys ,an armed robbery,and hostages.

IPSC shooter had been to the range.Had his IPSC open competition gun.

Outcome? Four dead bad guys,no hostages hurt.No charges filed against the Armed Citizen.

In the end,if my life is in mortal danger,step one,surviving.I'll usewhat I have,and sometimes,any gun is better than no gun.

I accept,if that ever happens,there WILL be an aftermath.

It won't be about what is fair,or what "should be"

I'm willing to compromise some to make the aftermath better,hopefully,for me.

I may not be an expert,but I AM thinking ahead,learning something,and trying to make good choices

 

[briandg]

All you can do is follow your own thoughts of what you have to do in life, whether it's megadoses of vitamin C or bungee jumping. People get screwed over by fate all of the time. The legal atmosphere in America isn't what it used to be, and in criminal law people are safer from prosecution I believe, but civil law has done nothing but worsen.

So do what you think is best and hope for the best.

Btw, don't think that your expertise as a gunsmith can't be used against you in a civil case. If the target was a sacred cow, the shot was less than clear, and you play out badly, being a high tech expert in weapons is just going to make it even more clear that you took an ordinary gun and turned it into a killing machine. Lawyers know law, and will have unlimited time and resources to pick you apart over unimaginable things. If they smell blood and money, the sky is the limit.

In every aspect of life I have two rules. Spend every day asking "what if?" And try to avoid the things that end badly.a person forgot to ask the question while bungee jumping in the supedome, or just ignored it when "gee, I may bash my skull in on the concrete floor." Came up on the magic eight ball.

 

[849ACSO]

I accept,if that ever happens,there WILL be an aftermath.

It won't be about what is fair,or what "should be"

I'm willing to compromise some to make the aftermath better,hopefully,for me.

I may not be an expert,but I AM thinking ahead,learning something,and trying to make good choices

Amen.

 

[briandg]

Hi, once again just playing the devil's advocate, but imagine this. The guy was a competition shooter, on route from a competition, with his competition gun. No real reason to raise questions, right?

It's sort of like watching a kid walking home from high school in his team jersey, carrying a duffel and a bat.

Put that same kid in a hoodie, have him walking home through a dark parking lot, and it changes. Don't count on rational thought always working.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....First, the only way that you will get in trouble for modifications is if they know that the gun was modified. Be discrete, make the thing look like an ordinary old handgun that anyone would have, and don't let the information make it into the report that you were using a $3,000 custom with the words live free or die on the slide.....

You will almost certainly not be able to do that.

1. If you use your gun it will almost certainly be taken from you as evidence.
   
   
2. Your gun will most likely be closely examined by a Firearms and Toolmark Examiner, especially if the DA thinks there's some chance he will prosecute. And you will have absolutely no control over what goes into the FTE's report.

 

[briandg]

That's right. Any reasonable examination by even a police officer will show the specialized components and may draw attention, and may get the thing bumped into a queue for a forensic or other examination. That's why in my mind it still comes back to just use stock guns and walmart ammo. I have no reason to go beyond that and just enough paranoia to stick with the decision.

But, using a flashy gun, volunteering information, etc, a person in that situation has got to remember to not act in any way that could reflect badly in the future. Maybe in SF, a person could wind up in a real jam pretty easily. Here, in tiny little soutwest mo there is a pretty good chance that there will be absolutely no scrutiny whatsoever.

 

[849ACSO]

Even in SW Mo, if you shoot someone, your gun IS going to the MSHP Crime Lab for examination by a Firearms and Toolmarks Examiner. That's going to happen long before the issue of justification is concluded. It doesn't matter if the law enforcement officer that seized it/looked at it notices anything or not.

That said, I don't, never have, and never will buy into the "stock gun and Wal-Mart ammo" attitude. I will make my gun reasonably (in my mind) serviceable FOR ME (both caliber and mods), and use ammo that is reasonably (in my mind)designed for duty/defense.

I've been involved in a shooting and faired just fine. I will take my chances with my reasonable gun and reasonable ammo again should there be another.

 

[briandg]

Probably so, if you say so.

 

[OldMarksman]

The actual Lawyers here seem to be saying that somehow my statement to the court that...

1. I shot that guy
2. I had to shoot that guy, because X,Y,Z
3. I absolutely MEANT to shoot that guy

Somehow there can be doubt cast upon those basic statements?

Well, yes, there can.

Do not assume that you are the good guy going in, or that what you say will be believed .

In a criminal trial, if the state can bring in someone to show that the actor could have set off a very light trigger, that would open the door to a manslaughter charge on which conviction might well be easier to get than on a large of intentional shooting.

In a civil trial (different court, different judge, different jury, different rules), the plaintiff need only prove that it was more likely than not that the shooting was not intentional. A light trigger could help him with that.

I guess my understanding of the "castle doctrine" and the "Stand your ground" laws lead me to beleive that a positive defense to the shooting (assuming it WAS justified) would protect the defender from this silliness.

I don't see what those laws have to do with this.

The have the opposing councel claim i did NOT mean to shoot the guy that i have stated under oath that i fully intended to shoot reaks of STUPIDITY.

To you, maybe.

Of course, that's not the only risk. Okay, so you fired deliberately. But suppose the evidence that you had to shoot the guy is not compelling. Your trigger could proved a basis for the state or the plaintiff contending that you didn't really have to, but that you were looking for the opportunity to do so, as evidenced by your irresponsible choice of trigger or your grip design,

It sounds like a childs game of "yes, i did"..."No, you didnt".

It's not a game.

 

[HiBC]

Well,I picked up my M+P.
My impressions:
First,for one to be used bone stock,I would have bought one with no thumb safety.
No.lets not argue thumb safeties.Thats another thread,please.

If I watch "Armed citizen" you tube videos of convenience store armed robberies,assaults on police officers,etc...

Most of the time its draw and fire at the threat at a range of a few feet..or inches.

For that purpose,an M+P trigger,as is,with no safety is just about right.

If a friend said "I want to get a CCW handgun",I could recommend they try an M+P 9C,with a stock trigger.

Same for 7 yard center of mass hits.No problem.

But,if I had to make a 50 ft CNS shot,I'd have far more confidence with a 25% better trigger.

And I think rapid fire I might have less dispersion with a 25 % better trigger.

Its still a good question with a grey answer.

Good gun,though.

 

[849ACSO]

Glad you like it. And it's true, for MOST combat scenarios, even the crappiest trigger will suffice out to 10 yards or so. I just prefer what I can shoot the best, that's still safe to be handled/carried.

Good luck!