Legal Issues with Kel Tec PF9 Trigger Upgrade ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lawndoctor1

New member
I have a Kel Tec PF9 with the factory trigger. I have been thinking about having the Galloway Precision trigger installed on my pistol. A guy at the shooting range told me the other day that if I did this it could very well cause problems for me if I were to ever have to use my pistol in a self defense situation. He said that if the bad guy/bad girl was shot and killed that by me not having the factory trigger could be held against me in a very big way.

Your thoughts,opinions,suggestions, experiences, etc?
 
No experience, thank goodness, but I carry (am carrying right now) a PF9. Literally anything could be used against you, but I think an upgraded trigger would be way down on the list. That said, I like my little KelTec, but I wouldn't spend money on a trigger upgrade. You'll never turn it into a target pistol, and the stock trigger ain't that bad.
 
Since when did evidence rooms test trigger weights?

Not saying I disagree with you, just thinking out loud. Also, many states don't allow civil charges in a justified shooting.

If it's a death due to negligence, you're gonna be screwed anyways.
 
CalmerThanYou said:
Why would a legal upgrade to a firearm be a consideration at all?
Click to expand...
For the same reason that carrying your own, legal, reloaded ammunition could be a consideration: a prosecutor thinks it wasn't a good shoot, he/she wants to convict you, so he/she will use anything available to convince a jury that you went out predisposed to kill someone. Once the accusation has been made, your defense team then has to try to find a way to rebut the allegation.
 
I kind of get that. I know there has been talk of how one would fare using RIP loads. A trigger upgrade though seems like a non-issue. Where do you draw the line? A trigger or updated sights, what about improving the grips. I suppose if deadly force is used a good atty. is going to be part of that years budget anyway.
 
In one case I am aware of, a police officer (not an ordinary citizen) "adjusted" the trigger pull of his service revolver, making the gun dangerous. He shot and badly wounded an armed criminal. He was (IIRC) acquitted of criminal charges, but he was fired and in a civil suit his former department refused to pay for his defense or for the award against him, since he had been in violation of department policy.

Jim
 
Calmer Than You said:
hI kind of get that. I know there has been talk of how one would fare using RIP loads. A trigger upgrade though seems like a non-issue. Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
The problem is that you don't get to decide whether or not it's an issue -- the prosecuting attorney decides. If he (or she) makes it an issue -- it's an issue. And then it's an issue that you and your defense team have to deal with.

Where to draw the line is a personal choice. There are some members here who feel absolutely comfortable carrying their own handloaded ammunition, even though Frank Ettin (one of the moderators, and an attorney) has written extensively on exactly why this is not a good idea. If you believe a replacement trigger isn't an issue, then do it.

My choice is to stay with what people who know more than I do about such things suggest as a safe course. I reload for the range, but I carry commercial JHP ammunition, exclusively. My carry gun is a 1911. A nice, crisp 3-pound trigger is great for the range, but the experts are pretty unanimous that for a 1911, anything less than 4 to 4-1/2 pounds is taking a risk. So I set all my triggers to 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 pounds. That way, if I'm using a different gun for range time, I'm not confusing my muscle memory.

I know another gentleman from the range where I shoot, a fellow veteran who also likes 1911s, who keeps his carry gun at 4-1/2 pounds but tunes his competition pistol to 3 pounds. That works for him; it wouldn't work for me.

Only you can decide what works for you.
 
Don't shoot people for the fun of it and you'll be fine. What about +p hollow points? Or night sights...or if they find out you're a member of a "killer gun forum"? What if you carry a BUG or extra magazine? What if you pull off a head shot by mistake? Or did you shoot them in the leg to watch them bleed out slowly?

Basically anything you do to keep from being a victim is seen as bad by the state and lawyers.

You're more likely to take heat for an AD due to the trigger or way you carry.
 
Aquila Blanca said:
The problem is that you don't get to decide whether or not it's an issue -- the prosecuting attorney decides. If he (or she) makes it an issue -- it's an issue. And then it's an issue that you and your defense team have to deal with.
Click to expand...
^^^This is an excellent point.

I often see internet posts about "show me an unquestionable shoot where the trigger resulted in a criminal conviction." Statements like that overlook the fact that the SD shooter doesn't get to decide whether a shoot was unquestionable, no matter how much we would all like to believe that we'd never, ever be involved in a questionable shoot. If you wind up with a prosecutor (or a civil plaintiff's attorney) who thinks that the trigger is an issue, then the trigger is an issue, and as AB pointed out "it's an issue that you and your defense team have to deal with."
 
In some states, as long as the USE OF LETHAL FORCE meets legal criteria, there's no concern. The biggest concern isn't necessarily CRIMINAL PROSECUTION but a followng CIVIL SUIT.

That's what caused Bernhard Goertz, in the infamous NYC subway shooting, the most trouble. The only criminal charge that stuck was carrying a concealed, unlicensed weapon. The Civil suit was big dollars and bankrupted him, and generallly made his life misearable.

In a civil suit the other party's attorney might make the claim that the mods done to the gun show that the shooter was some kind of a hotshot with a tricked-out gun, just looking for an excuse to use it, etc., etc. All BS, to be sure, but still something that can be claimed.

Your attorney could, in response, argue that the kind of trigger modifications being discussed were 1) legal and 2) were done to give the shooter better control of the gun and a better ability to properly deal with a self-defense situation.

Here in North Carolina, if it's a good shoot (i.e., the legal use of lethal force) modifications to the gun are a non-issue, and there cannot be a related/following civil suit. Knowing the gun laws in your state might help you better understand the situation.

The gun range "lawyer" who warned you that your trigger could be a problem MIGHT be right, but I suspect he's just talking about things he only semi-understands, probably doesn't know the difference between a criminal or civil court case, and is just parroting something he read or heard in a forum discussion like this. It may not even be a concern in YOUR STATE.
 
Last edited:
it would be interesting to see an actual case in which evidence of a modified trigger was used to convict someone of homicide. That would really answer the question.

I'll play devil's advocate here. A trigger modification has nothing to do with proving the elements of homicide. And Unless it proves motive, intent, or premeditation, it's irrelevant and should be excluded by a motion in limine.

I'm probably wrong. But it's fun to lazily speculate.
 
An over-zealous prosecutor might indeed try to use a modified trigger to show malicious intent, as well as premeditation.

From perusing the Internet, I have learned that prosecutors don't think like ordinary people, and they seem to use a different dictionary than the rest of us use (and I don't mean Black's Legal Dictionary). I am reminded that on one of the "gun" forums a few years ago there was discussion of a case in which the prosecutor told the jury that "premeditation can be formed in an instant." Now, I'm likely not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I took several advanced English courses in college, I have been paid by real publications to write real articles, I was editor of a quarterly newsletter for a (small) international non-profit, and I have edited books. I have encountered the word "premeditation," and in any context in which I have encountered it, the "pre" part meant, "before -- in advance."

The notion that "premeditation can be formed in an instant" is antithetical to common sense, and an affront to the English language. Yet, there was a professional government prosecutor making that statement in a trial of a man for murder.

I guess my point is that, if a prosecutor wants to ruin your day, there's just not much you can do to forestall it. I think (IIRC) the way Frank summed up his treatise on why not to use reloaded ammo was the same advice others have given: "Why give the enemy a weapon to use against you?"
 
I guess my point is that, if a prosecutor wants to ruin your day, there's just not much you can do to forestall it.
Click to expand...
Maybe everyone should carry a 25 loaded with FMJ's so a prosecutor can't use the fact you carried a "high powered gun loaded with hollow points" against you.

I still think it's mostly speculation to say it's going to make a difference in the outcome of a good shoot, which is actually determined by the laws and the facts, not by the prosecutor.
 
WATCH LINK I POSTED. The link I will provide is a pretty good look into the legalities of modified firearms if you had to use one to defend your life. Basically, the gun shop worker who told you that has fallen to the brainless thousands who regurgitate what they here from other people or on the internet. Watch this video, very good information.

There is no reason to fret about modifying your gun. the biggest argument is that "the defendant modified his gun to more easily shoot people" which is complete BS and can easily be fought in court, in the RARE case they did use a line like that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsaI5raGZfA&t=1s
 
Last edited:
Mr. Hill said:
it would be interesting to see an actual case in which evidence of a modified trigger was used to convict someone of homicide. That would really answer the question.
Click to expand...
You're asking the wrong questions. The question is not "can a modified trigger get me convicted of homicide?" The question you should be asking is "how much can a modified trigger complicate my defense?"

There are a handful of cases out there where a trigger comes into play. For example, in the case of People v. Magliato, there was evidence of about the weight of the trigger (DA vs SA, not necessarily modified), and that evidence was part of the body of evidence used initially to convict the defendant of some degree of murder. The appellate court eventually reduced the conviction to manslaughter, but that doesn't mean that the modified trigger didn't complicate matters. Appeals aren't free.

In State Farm Mutual Insurance v. Partridge, Partridge had lightened the trigger on his .357 Magnum revolver to a "hair trigger." While out hunting jackrabbits, he had an ND, striking the passenger in his car, & was sued for personal injuries. From the decision:  "Prior to the date of the accident, Partridge filed the trigger mechanism of his pistol to lighten the trigger pull so that the gun would have ‘hair trigger action’; the trial court specifically found this modification of the gun to be a negligent act, creating an exceptionally dangerous weapon." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge, 10 Cal. 3d 94, 97 (1973). This isn't a SD shooting, but is an example of another way in which a modified trigger can be a problem.

Sawyer.N said:
WATCH LINK I POSTED. The link I will provide is a pretty good look into the legalities of modified firearms if you had to use one to defend your life. Basically, the gun shop worker who told you that has fallen to the brainless thousands who regurgitate what they here from other people or on the internet. Watch this video, very good information.
Click to expand...
I don't have any speakers on my home computer, but I'll watch it later. That said, I'm not confident that YouTube is a good place to get your legal information.

Sawyer.N said:
There is no reason to fret about modifying your gun. the biggest argument is that "the defendant modified his gun to more easily shoot people" which is complete BS and can easily be fought in court, in the RARE case they did use a line like that.
Click to expand...
How easily? What would it take to "easily" fight this in court?

The reality is that, by the time you figure out if your gun mods will be an issue, it's already too late to change course. That ship will have sailed. If you have to fight a courtroom battle over your gun modifications, you'll likely need experts. Depending on the modification, your expert may have to test the modification and write a report. If the 1st expert doesn't say anything beneficial to the defense, you won't want to use that expert, and may need to go looking for a 2nd one, and so on, until you either find the right expert or run out of money. Don't expect experts (or the legal fees to find them or review reports) to come cheap, either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top