Legal Issues with Kel Tec PF9 Trigger Upgrade ?

[Walt Sherrill]

UO

And then consider (1) the fact that when police officers routinely carried revolvers, a large number of major departments had them modified to prevent their being operated in the single action mode, and (2) many departments specified long heavy trigger pulls for semi autos, often insisting on pulls that were similar to "double action only". Do you think there might have been a reason for that?

There are certainly members in some agencies that are VERY PROFICIENT and familiar with their weapons. And SWAT team members are among them. They are required to focus on their use of weapons. But I think they are the exception, not the rule.

I may be over-simplifying, but using LEOs as a model or standard in this discussion may be misleading, as I suspect that only a small percentage of LEOs are really frequent users of their weapons! Most, for example, would NOT consider taking time away from their family lives to spend fun time at the range. Many (perhaps MOST) of them may be no more LIKELY to use a weapon in the real world (whether against attackers or critters) than many of us on this forum, and most of them will likely have far less trigger time! MANY LEOs will go their entire career without ever firing their weapons on duty (except in training or qualification sessions) and problems seldom occur on the street, when they're interacting with citizens or potential perpetrators that makes it necessary to unholster their weapon. In my experience, which may not be typical, most LEOs are not gun enthusiasts and many (probably MOST) only use their weapons during their periodic qualifications. They have other tools that they find more useful in their daily work -- whether it's a baton, pepper spray, or a Taser, etc. -- and they'll use them first, if they can. (That's good.)

It should be no surprise then, that there are problems and accidents in some departments and that department management has taken steps to keep problems to a minimum by picking weapons that THEY HOPE will make such events less likely, but I'm not sure the effort has been all that successful. That said, I'd argue that Glocks are pretty close to a (non-worked over, fully STOCK) SA gun if you don't have a NY trigger or similar mods installed -- and most LE agencies don't use the NY trigger. (The only folks I've met who really LIKE the NY trigger are shooters who have been life-long revolver shooters.)

 

[Lohman446]

I'm pretty sure arguing that you are more qualified in the use of lethal force than a law enforcement officer, while often being factually accurate, is not a going to help your argument to a jury.

I recall reading one case study (I forget the name, maybe someone here doesn't) where the wife and husband were involved in an altercation with multiple unarmed attackers in or around their driveway (the exact where is a question of fact) and the husband fired shots on the attackers and then rendered aid.

His amount of training was actually used against him. The prosecution painted him as having been seeking out a chance to use his gun.

Lawrence Hickey was the case I was thinking of

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Many (perhaps MOST) of them may be no more LIKELY to use a weapon in the real world (whether against attackers or critters) than many of us on this forum, and most of them will likely have far less trigger time!...

The people on this Forum represent a miniscule portion of private citizens who carry guns for protection. While some of us here have more training than the average LEO, the majority of gun owners, including those who regularly carry their guns, probably have far less.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I recall reading one case study (I forget the name, maybe someone here doesn't) ...

Please spare us these unidentified, undocumented "case studies." If you, or we, can verify it, it's worthless.

Did you remember it correctly (often we discover that people did not)? But unless we can know that your recollection is accurate and that what you think happened actually did happen exactly the way you think it did, what good is the information?

 

[MarkCO]

Just a question...how many of the lawyers posting on this thread have been qualified in court as an expert in firearms, ballistics or shooting reconstruction?
Funny how attorneys tell folks to stay in their own lane, but attorneys don't take their own advice. Attorneys are supposed to be an advocate for their client, that is all.

Last, I will quote my first point...

1. There is NO case history proving what a single jury might or might not do.

This is the "pause" that any prudent person should take when doing anything that might put them into the legal system.

 

[Spats McGee]

Just a question...how many of the lawyers posting on this thread have been qualified in court as an expert in firearms, ballistics or shooting reconstruction?

AFAIK, none. How many law licenses do you hold?

 

[Lohman446]

Frank Ettin

I edited afterwards. Lawrence Hickey. Though again one does not know exactly how each factor played and there were disputed matters of fact (street vs driveway for instance)

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I edited afterwards. Lawrence Hickey...

The Larry Hickey story is a complicated one. Marty Hayes did this excellent monograph on Hickey, his 71 days in jail, his two trials ending in hung juries, and the DA's ultimate dismissal of the charges.

Here Hayes tells us about the training issue (pg 18):

...Even if the defense had chosen to give only cursory mention to Hickey’s training, the prosecutor would have forced their hand at trial. He harped endlessly on the various shooting classes Hickey had completed. “It worked to our advantage in both trials because we disclosed all that to the prosecutor from Day One,” Messmer [Hickey's public defender] states. “In trial, the prosecutor went overboard with that and he really disgusted the jury because he wasted their time,” Messmer explains, relating how, like a broken record, the prosecutor asked each expert and material witness about each class Hickey had completed, what it covered, challenging why a private citizen would need that knowledge.

Messmer believes the jury eventually thought, “Get to the point. We know that!” He adds, “It made the prosecution look bad because Larry was getting training and doing his job and they were attacking him for that. It blew up on them in the first trial, and they went back to it and it blew again in the second trial. We knew they were going to bring it up, but it actually helped us out.”...

 

[Frank Ettin]

Just a question...how many of the lawyers posting on this thread have been qualified in court as an expert in firearms, ballistics or shooting reconstruction?....

And exactly how do you think that's applicable here?

...Attorneys are supposed to be an advocate for their client, that is all....

And do you have even the tiniest clue what that means and what it involves. Among other things it involves:

1. Understanding the law that will be applicable to the case, including what the jury instructions are going to be. That could also include proposing jury instructions and framing legal arguments as to why those desired jury instructions should be given.
   
   
2. Investigating the facts, including making decisions about hiring private investigators.
   
   
3. Conducting discovery to find out what evidence the other side has. And responding to discovery requests from the other side in ways best calculated to protect the client's interests and rights.
   
   
4. Analyzing the evidence in the context of the applicable law for the purposes of making strategic and tactical decisions about how to best, within the constraints of the applicable rules tell his client's story. That can include deciding what witnesses to call in what order, what questions to ask and how to ask them -- considering likely jury and judge responses and how to lay any foundation required by the rule of evidence. It can also involve deciding when, where, and with respect to what engage expert witnesses.
   
   
5. Making strategic and tactical decisions about how to best, within the constraints of the applicable rules, attack the other side's story.
   
   
6. Put together a closing argument based on the evidence for the jury tieing everything together: what the true facts should be found to be; why; and how the law when applied to the facts should lead the jury to conclude in a manner favorable to the client.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The people on this Forum represent a miniscule portion of private citizens who carry guns for protection.

My point was that LEOs aren't a lot different than most of the general public, when it comes to firearms: some are competent and proficient, others less so.

Commenting about the weapons LEOs are forced to use (i.e., they are seldom able to choose the weapons themselves) tells us more about LEO leadership and their concerns than anything about the actual safety of weapons or why those weapons are chosen for use.

While some of us here have more training than the average LEO, the majority of gun owners, including those who regularly carry their guns, probably have far less.

Except for those officers with specialized duties, the training LEOs get -- once they've been through the equivalent of Basic Law Enforcement training and become a certified LEO, there typically isn't much training done. (A few departments may use simulators, but that's been on the decline over the past decade as LEO budgets went to hell with the recession.) More often, it's not training but just periodic qualifications to demonstrate a base level of proficiency or competency.

It's really hard to have FAR LESS training than the typical LEO receives over the course of his or her career. Some of them -- like SWAT TEAM members -- do get a lot of training, and become very proficient -- but I think they're the exception, not the rule.

You do bring up an interesting point, however -- I wonder how many folks DO carry a firearm regularly, and how many do it legally (if doing it concealed.)

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Except for those officers with specialized duties, the training LEOs get -- once they've been through the equivalent of Basic Law Enforcement training and become a certified LEO, there typically isn't much training done...

Even that is considerably more training than probably the vast majority of people carrying loaded guns in public -- especially with the expansion of Constitutional Carry in a number of States.

Folks even post here that they don't need any training. Maybe they had some in the military some years ago. Maybe they used to go hunting with their fathers. Maybe they shot a .22 rifle a few times one summer at camp. Maybe a buddy spent a half hour showing him the ropes. Or maybe not even that much. But that ought to be all anyone needs. Really?

From what I see that the public ranges I frequent the general level of proficiency -- both gun handling and marksmanship -- is atrocious.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Here's something for the legal eagles-
"I bought the gun used, and it was like that when I bought it. I didn't know anything had been modified."

 

[ShootistPRS]

So you are totally incompetent as well as a killer?

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Even that is considerably more training than probably the vast majority of people carrying loaded guns in public -- especially with the expansion of Constitutional Carry in a number of States.

You may be correct, probably are -- but you're making a lot of assumptions that simply aren't based on anything that can be verified. What you see at the range is not a representative sample.

We all make assumptions like this all the time, about why people vote as they do, why they believe certain things about their religion or religious practices, about folks with different skin colors, why they think the U.S. moon landing was faked, etc. We (you and I) consider our assumptions on this topic rational, too. Any training is certainly MORE no training... but saying FAR MORE may be exaggerating it a bit, for effect.

An hours of flight instruction in the cockpit is certainly FAR MORE than NO instruction or hands-on guidance if you've never flown a plane yourself, but it may not be sufficient.

 

[OldMarksman]

How much training people receive bears little relevance to the subject at hand.

The reasons for the removal of single action capability from revolvers, and the reasons for the adoption of semi-auto pistols with longer, heavier triggers, apply to all service and defensive handgun applications.

 

[Terminatorret]

I replaced the OEM plastic triggers with Northwood triggers on both my PF9's and was very happy with the conversion. The Northwood improved both my shooting comfort and my accuracy.

 

[OldMarksman]

Lest there be any misunderstanding here, the concern about tigger modifications applies to mods that lighten the pull weight to require less force than would be required to press the trigger on a comparable factory-issued defensive pistol.

Modifications to smooth a trigger, or to make the trigger surface more ergonomic, should not be an issue.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The reasons for the removal of single action capability from revolvers, and the reasons for the adoption of semi-auto pistols with longer, heavier triggers, apply to all service and defensive handgun applications.

Why police officers use the weapons those weapons, the caliber and caacity of those weapons, whether they have DAO triggers or DA/SA triggers, or whether they individuals making the purchase choice may have been based on a number of factors to which we were not (and are not) privy.

In many cases it's likely that one of the biggest reasons a police department selects a given weapon may be based on the deals they're offered by the gun maker. (We have reasons to believe that getting a large number of police department to use specific weapons helps the gunmaker sell more of that weapon to the general public.) The specific rationales or justifications the LEO decision-makers use to explain their actions may or may not have played a big a role in the real decision making process.

Any number of accidents or negligent discharges with guns involving police have occurred -- you can even find them on You Tube -- using the very guns that are supposed to be less troublesome. To further complicate matters, we don't know if those accidents happen at a disproportionately higher or lower rate than in the non-LEO universe.

Arguing that the these weapons were selected BECAUSE they may be less likely to be a problem U]MAY be correct[/U], but like some of the other assumptions seen in this discussion, here, that argument is also an assumption, not a FACT.

 

[OldMarksman]

In many cases it's likely that one of the biggest reasons a police department selects a given weapon may be based on the deals they're offered by the gun maker.

Certainly.

But a police department that selects Glock pistols and that requires a particular trigger specification is more what we are talking about here.

And rules that required the elimination of single action capability from revolvers had nothing whatsoever to do with source selection.

Any number of accidents or negligent discharges with guns involving police have occurred -- you can even find them on You Tube -- using the very guns that are supposed to be less troublesome.

That doesn't tell us very much, does it?

To further complicate matters, we don't know if those accidents happen at a disproportionately higher or lower rate than in the non-LEO universe.

Nor should we care.

Arguing that the these weapons were selected BECAUSE they may be less likely to be a problem MAY be correct, but like some of the other assumptions seen in this discussion, here, that argument is also an assumption, not a FACT.

The argument has been well substantiated.

It is well known that lighter triggers require less force to press than heavier ones, that the length of pull figures in, and that under stress, fine moor skills are affected. It has also been demonstrated that even highly trained personnel who are convinced that they do not touch their triggers before firing often do so repeatedly, even though they are completely unaware of having done do.

But while Massad Ayoob can win matches using a Glock with a New York Trigger, not all of us can do so.

It behooves most of us who are not constrained by departmental regulations to (1)use what we can shoot, and train with it; and (2) to avoid carrying something that is likely to be described by expert witnesses as being an imprudent choice for defensive carry.

 

[MarkCO]

It behooves most of us who are not constrained by departmental regulations to (1)use what we can shoot, and train with it; and (2) to avoid carrying something that is likely to be described by expert witnesses as being an imprudent choice for defensive carry.

AFAIK, I am the only expert witness who has said anything on this thread, even though some of the attorneys try to imply that they know the subject matter. I am sure someone will get peeved at me again for saying that. But I don't think either of the attorney's who will be questioning me in court on Monday will take exception to that.

If your finger was on the trigger when it should not have been, that will be where I will say someone did not act prudently. If you say you shot when you did not intend to, that is self incrimination and I would not be needed. If you modded your trigger or not, if you had your finger on the trigger, you had better be following the 4 laws of gun safety. If that does mean pointing a gun at a person you intend to destroy, then regardless, you had better meet whatever the legal threshold is to use deadly force whether you pull the trigger or not.

I agree OldMarksman that the training is the key, and most run of the mill CCWers don't have enough of it. Especially in dynamic non-sterile environments.

PS. I have not seen Mas win anything in a very long time. Not that it matters really.