Update: What is the current general consensus on carrying a modified handgun?

[Frank Ettin]

I'm wondering how often they'd even test the trigger weight unless it's a drastic departure from the norm.....

If you use a gun (whether in what you claim is self defense or otherwise) it will be taken as evidence. It will then usually be turned over to a firearms and toolmark examiner for forensic evaluation. Among other things he will determine that it is a functioning firearm and whether it's in factory configuration, including determining the trigger pull weight.

 

[Brit]

The idea of a Glock 19, straight out of the box? Not a good idea.

Replacing a stock Glock connector with a 3 lb connector, is more or less standard mod. Mine is a 4.5lb, and clean.

The plastic sights? Gone, TruGlo fiber optic sights, extended slide lock, Glock made. Butt plug, flush fit. Snip the bottom corner off my Gen 4 magazine release, with a sharp knife. It dug into my second finger.

Works fine, shot it a lot.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I find the stock trigger on my Glock 19s to be just fine

I have replaced the stock sights with Trijcons and have had ROBAR do a grip reduction, high cut on the trigger guard and round the trigger guard. ROBAR also applied their finishes to the slide and internal parts, as well as added a Vickers slide stop and magazine release. The frame modification better accommodate my small hands.

 

[OldMarksman]

This is worth reading. A police instructor and expert witness, who not an attorney:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/concealed-carry-self-defense/419191-facts-about-light-trigger-pull-liability.html​

Edit: this was linked in Post #99.

 

[Loosedhorse]

http://smith-wessonforum.com/concealed-carry-self-defense/419191-facts-about-light-trigger-pull-liability.html

From that link:

"The [Glock] 3.5/4.5-lb. connector is factory approved for serious use only in conjunction with the NY-1 trigger module, which brings pull weight up into the 6-lb. range."

Good to know, though I wish we had a factory letter. (I am not at all questioning Ayoob's facts or honesty, just to be clear. It's just that having a document saying in effect, "I am Glock, and I say so" would be even better.)

FWIW, the 3.5/4.5-lb. ("minus") connector doesn't work the same way in Gen4 Glocks as earlier Glocks, as in Gen4 the designers tilted the trigger housing module, thus changing the angle of the standard connector vis-à-vis the trigger bar, making it "heavier". Glock "fixed" that by supplying later Gen4s with a new "dot connector" which brought the angle and vertical height of the (now tilted) connector more congruent with the previous (untilted) standard connector.

(Yes, the dot connector works something like the minus connector when placed in Gen1-3 Glocks. And yes, I wish I had a factory letter for all the above, too.)

 

[Brit]

The trigger weight, is a mute point, if the punch draw, a method of starting to fire, in a confrontation, is taught.

The shot is started from the original first, and final grip of your pistol.
(To get there, miles and miles of dry fire)

First, pistol unloaded, no magazine, or cartridges, anywhere near the indoor training area.

The same holster, same place on belt, dressed the way I would be dressed to go out. Glock 19 4th Gen.
Facing an outside wall, that would stop an inadvertent shot fired.
Target, a life sized cardboard silhouette.

Clear cover garment, first and final grip of pistol, lift till well clear of holster, swivel till slide is parallel to ground/floor. Now punch pistol forward, fast, till right hand gripping pistol, hits left hand, which has raised till it is level with hand holding pistol, left hand wraps around hand holding pistol, and the PUNCH! continues, till all stops, both eyes open, behind sights.

The last few inches of forward travel, has finger contacts trigger, Gun fires, as it stops.

The sights recall from where the shot went! Not were it is going.

A flash sight picture, the second, or more shots follow, depends.

Dry fire is imperative. Same Gun/Same place/always!

 

[OldMarksman]

The trigger weight, is a mute point, if the punch draw, a method of starting to fire, in a confrontation, is taught.

The shot is started from the original first, and final grip of your pistol.
(To get there, miles and miles of dry fire)

First, pistol unloaded, no magazine, or cartridges, anywhere near the indoor training area.

The same holster, same place on belt, dressed the way I would be dressed to go out. Glock 19 4th Gen.
Facing an outside wall, that would stop an inadvertent shot fired.
Target, a life sized cardboard silhouette.

Clear cover garment, first and final grip of pistol, lift till well clear of holster, swivel till slide is parallel to ground/floor. Now punch pistol forward, fast, till right hand gripping pistol, hits left hand, which has raised till it is level with hand holding pistol, left hand wraps around hand holding pistol, and the PUNCH! continues, till all stops, both eyes open, behind sights.

The last few inches of forward travel, has finger contacts trigger, Gun fires, as it stops.

The sights recall from where the shot went! Not were it is going.

A flash sight picture, the second, or more shots follow, depends.

Dry fire is imperative. Same Gun/Same place/always!

I have no idea of what it is that you retrying to say.

What is taught and what people do are often not the same thing.

Trigger pull with is not a moot point in practice, whether it relates to precision in shooting when desired or needed (lighter is better for most of us) or to reducing the risk of an unintentional discharge wan fine motor skills are impaired (heavier is better).

 

[acelaw]

"If you use a gun (whether in what you claim is self defense or otherwise) it will be taken as evidence. It will then usually be turned over to a firearms and toolmark examiner for forensic evaluation. Among other things he will determine that it is a functioning firearm and whether it's in factory configuration, including determining the trigger pull weight."

Not necessarily. Forensic testing is more helpful as a means of matching a gun to a shooting. In the scenario of a self defense shooting where you stay on the scene and hand over the gun, the forensic testing won't show a lot. I'm watching a murder trial right now under these circumstances where the gun itself was never even sent for testing.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I'm watching a murder trial right now under these circumstances where the gun itself was never even sent for testing.

Do you know that the gun was in fact not evaluated by a firearms and toolmark examiner or that the prosecution is simply not introducing the testing as evidence?

My information, including from a discussion a few years ago with a firearms and toolmark examiner at a National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers program on forensic evidence, is that a gun taken as evidence is always evaluated. Whether the results are probative of anything or whether the prosecutor (or defense) has reason to introduce evidence from that evaluation, are different matters.

During the course of any investigation a lot of things are done because until those things are done no one knows what doing them will tell us. But it's often the case that some of what we might learn from doing those things isn't meaningful or useful.

 

[acelaw]

Yes, I'm certain it wasn't sent for testing. An attorney in my office is trying the case. Granted, this is pretty unusual from my experience

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

Hello, everyone. OP here.

Well, this has been an amazing thread and I am extremely grateful for everyone's insight. Both personally and challenging to the attorneys who chimed into this thread with first-hand encounters.

I'm going to side with the camp of "I don't carry a modified trigger" now.

It completely removes the possibility of having my gun come into question.

I don't want to have to articulate anything to anyone. To most people in the divided nation, we live in, we are the "bad guys" for carrying a gun, to begin with. They will see a self-defense shooting as "two wrongs don't make a right" and may even go as far as to say I am somehow at fault for being there. I've even heard the heinous "shoot the leg or arm" come out from that side.

To have to articulate why I modified my weapon the way I did when I simply don't have to just seems like a no-brainer. Don't modify it.


Completely remove that potential can of worms from being opened in the first place. It'll cost more money, more time which will equal to even more money and could quite possibly sway the jury for an otherwise not guilty verdict into a guilty verdict.

I'm sure a stock Glock (in my case) will be pictured next to my custom one. Every single thing will be pointed out, I'm sure of it. Overwatch trigger, 4.5 connector, Taran mag well, extended slide stop, sights, Surefire XC1, beavertail, etc.... We don't see it as anything bad. Those are enhancements from when I moved from my previous manufacturer of choice onto Glock. Trying to keep it similar. But all they'll hear is the words of the lawyer and the whispers of "blood-lust".

Now, I shoot this Glock just as fast and as accurately as my SIG Sauer P229, which I went back to and an M11 as well. Mind you, those SIGs are factory SRT triggers.

So for me. I don't need to carry a modified gun.

Knowing the potential headache I'm avoiding, I'll be more than happy to discontinue doing so and going back to a P-Series SIG pistol.

 

[ShootistPRS]

Spats,
The Harold Fish case didn't mention ammo or gun. It was a case that was wrongfully prosecuted and later dismissed as a self defense case.

How is it relevant to my statements?

 

[Lohman446]

Spats,
The Harold Fish case didn't mention ammo or gun. It was a case that was wrongfully prosecuted and later dismissed as a self defense case.

How is it relevant to my statements?

The prosecution used, from my memory, the fact that Mr Fish was carrying a 10MM (a round more powerful than even the police carry) as evidence that he was not shooting as a last resort. He was looking for trouble.

Sure they did it wrongly but Mr. Fish will never get that time back.

 

[Spats McGee]

Spats,
The Harold Fish case didn't mention ammo or gun. It was a case that was wrongfully prosecuted and later dismissed as a self defense case.

How is it relevant to my statements?

It is relevant to this statement:

Never once that I am aware of has the characteristics of the gun or ammunition ever been considered in a self defense shooting. If you have a circumstance where it has I would love to be proven wrong and read that transcript.

From the Harold Fish decision:

Harold Arthur Fish (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction and sentence for second degree murder. He challenges various evidentiary rulings made by the superior court, contends two instances of juror misconduct entitle him to a new trial and raises six issues related to the final jury instructions. For the reasons stated below and in our separate memorandum decision, we reverse and remand for a new trial. . . . Perceiving the Victim would be unable to control the dogs, Defendant dropped his hiking stick, grabbed his ten millimeter Kimber semiautomatic handgun, and when the dogs were about seven feet from him fired a “warning shot” into the ground in front of the approaching dogs, dispersing them to the sides of the trail.

At this point, the Defendant saw the Victim halfway down the hill accelerating towards the Defendant. The Defendant yelled at the Victim that he had not hurt the dogs, but the Victim continued to come at him, with his eyes crossed and looking crazy and enraged, cursing at the Defendant and yelling that he was going to hurt the Defendant. The Defendant, who was pointing the gun at the ground, yelled to the Victim to get back and leave the Defendant alone, but the Victim continued to race toward him, accelerating, yelling profanities and swinging his arms. The Defendant thought the Victim was going to kill him and he had nowhere to run because the dogs were at either side of the trail. . . . . the Victim was about five to eight feet from Defendant, at which point Defendant shot the Victim three times in the chest. . . .

At trial, Defendant argued he was acting in self-defense when he shot the Victim. . . .

State v. Fish, 222 Ariz. 109 (2012)

I would also direct your attention here: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2009/07/21/fish-ordeal-–-over/

ETA: Lohman446 is correct. The prosecution made much ado about the use of the 10mm, and if memory serves me correctly, comments from at least one juror indicated that he was very bothered by Fish's 10mm.

 

[OldMarksman]

The Harold Fish case didn't mention ammo or gun.

Surely you jest. Of course the facts presented to the jury included a description of the gun.

It was a case that was wrongfully prosecuted...

On what do you base that assertion?

... and later dismissed as a self defense case.

Your words "as a self defense case" have no meaning here. Harold Fish's defense was based on a claim of self defense.

Fish was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to prison.

In trial court, Fish's attorney had attempted to introduce evidence pertaining to the prior behavior of the victim (usually not relevant), and the judge had refused to allow that evidence to be admitted. That provided grounds for appeal, and the appellate court found that the judge's refusal to allow that evidence to be admitted had been improper. For that and perhaps other procedural reasons, the appellate court reversed Fish's conviction and remanded the case for retrial.

The state declined to attempt to try Fish a second time.

How is it relevant to my statements?

After the trial, one of the jurors stated that the fact that Fish had been carrying a 10MM pistol was the deciding factor for her.

 

[acelaw]

Any links to the juror comments?

The same prosecutor that points out the "hair trigger" is probably also pointing out the military grade caliber designed for war (9 mm) and the unnecessarily deadly hollow point ammo. Y'all carrying less deadly calibers with fmjs?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Any links to the juror comments?....

I'm afraid juror comments, as well as other information about the comments on Fish's use of 10mm HP ammunition are buried in this article.

It becomes apparent reading the article that there was considerable conflicting evidence. Issues of judgment, values and beliefs played a significant role deciding whether Harold Fish was justified in shooting Grant Kuenzli. One can see, going through the article, that no one thing decides the question -- each bit of information tips the scales one way or the other.

 

[Loosedhorse]

comments from at least one juror indicated that he was very bothered by Fish's 10mm.

After the trial, one of the jurors stated that the fact that Fish had been carrying a 10MM pistol was the deciding factor for her.

Any links to the juror comments?

I'm afraid juror comments, as well as other information about the comments on Fish's use of 10mm HP ammunition are buried in this article.

Hmmm. I'm afraid that article contains no support for OM's claim.

A juror does indeed say, "The whole hollow point thing bothered me.  That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible.  It’s designed to kill." I think the use of hollow-points for self-defense is easily defended in court...perhaps as simply as asking what type of bullets the bailiff carries in his sidearm. The fact that the was no defense of hollow-points seems to be just one of many errors Fish and his attorney made.

Yes, the fact that his pistol was 10mm was introduced at trial. I believe that, in argument, the prosecutor made a big deal of that. Fish did, on appeal, argue that the caliber evidence was improperly introduced; the appeals court was not impressed by that argument (but was of course impressed by the argument about the improper way that the prior-acts evidence about the deceased was excluded).

So, no, no evidence that the jurors were swayed by the 10mm caliber is before us. I'm not saying it doesn't exist--perhaps some interview containing that information is in the archives of some local newspaper, or in the tapes of a local radio station. But I haven't seen it.

I am of course willing to be educated.

There were so many errors made, so much to learn in the Fish case. It is not clear that "10mm gets you convicted" is one of them.

 

[Lohman446]

each bit of information tips the scales one way or the other.

There were so many errors made, so much to learn in the Fish case.

There were a lot of errors by Mr. Fish in his defense and they were compounded further by his lawyer, a political prosecution, and the judge in the original case.

None of us are safe from political prosecution.

We can however make our case as simple as possible and burden our lawyer with as minimal extraneous issues to deal with that will hamper his or her job and cost us money. To me gun modifications fall into this extraneous issue category.

 

[OldMarksman]

Hmmm. I'm afraid that article contains no support for OM's claim.

A juror does indeed say, "The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill."

Right. I misremembered. I remembered t hollow point issue.

I think the use of hollow-points for self-defense is easily defended in court...perhaps as simply as asking what type of bullets the bailiff carries in his sidearm.

Ordinarily, yes,, but the argument in this case would no doubt have been countered by asking the bailiff whether the bailiff carried a 10MM side-arm.

The fact that the was no defense of hollow-points seems to be just one of many errors Fish and his attorney made.

I'm not sure of that--such a defense would likely have put more focus on the caliber.

Yes, the fact that his pistol was 10mm was introduced at trial. I believe that, in argument, the prosecutor made a big deal of that.

Yep.

This part of the discussion started wit this:

There have been many cases where the ammunition used was brought up and questioned but not once in a personal defense case has it ever been argued that I am aware of.

...not that it matters on whit whether the defendant had been claiming self defense.....