IDK if it's true. But I tend not to much mods my handgun to much other then grips , or guide rod, minor little things , nothing extreme. Like my Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm that is my EDC .
Couldn't agree more.I think part of the problem with this particular issue and many of the discussions of shootings here, is that there is a tendency to try to label a shooting as either good or bad; justified or not justified, legal or illegal.
In reality while some are easy to categorize, more than a few are such that there are mitigating factors and aggravating factors and it is not unusual for the people who make the decisions as to whether or not to charge someone to disagree among themselves whether the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors or not.
It seems prudent to attempt to stack as many mitigating factors in their corner as is reasonably possible.
I'm by no means a lawyer, but this kind of "modification" is about the only thing I can see that would matter. It's basically painting a picture of the mindset of the shooter. Something like a lighter trigger can't paint you as bloodthirsty lunatic like plain text can. I'm not saying he's a bloodthirsty lunatic (and I'm not saying that he's not), but I can understand how it's viewed by some.Mesa (AZ) PD Officer Brailsford is currently under fire for modifying the inside of thedust cover of his AR-15 to say "You're F****d". I do believe it is being used against him.
That is simply not true. There are cases where a gun was legally used, ie. there was an acquittal, but modifications were an "issue" that had to be addressed by the defense in court.This one has been beat to death several times. No one has come up with a court case where a modified, within reason, handgun was legally used and the modifications were an issue. Short of going fully auto, some sights, trigger work, again within reason, no 1/2 lb pull jobs, you'll be ok.
A lawyer isn't going to make a convincing argument for your examples. A hired expert witness/subject matter expert might make provide an opinion that would support your arguments - of course the prosecution will probably have their expert witness/SME as well.Any good def lawyer can argue that the mods to your gun allow you safer utilization in a fight, as long as safeties are left in place & triggers are not unreasonably light. A crisp 4# trigger allows for more precise shooting, especially if a safety is involved, ala 1911, thus safer in a fight. My carry guns usually have stock triggers with some smoothing.
I don't think these fit the criteria laid out in this thread. Both of these appear to be claimed to be accidental by the accused. I want to see a case were an otherwise lawful use of force was deemed unlawful due to some sort of mod to the firearm. If that exists, I wanna see it. I don't believe it does.You set up an impossibility to support what you want to be true. If the gun was legally used, modifications won't be an issue. That comes up when the use is questionable or negligent.
Cases? Here are a couple I just looked up.
I have posted others when this issue has been raised here, before.
However, by far the majority of trigger modification cases are defendants claiming a murder was an accident, due to a modified trigger.
You aren't going to lose solely because of a firearm modification, it fits within the totality of circumstances. At worst, it can be one of the building bricks of the prosecutions' case in the eyes of a/the juror(s), or a prosecutor uses it to complicate a case (that might be weak)......It would still be interesting to know if anyone has been convicted in a legal self defense shooting, solely from simple firearm modifications.....
Yes, you made a blanket statement - ie. all cases, not correct. Blatantly wrong.So about 17-18 states require only a majority to rule. Kalif is one. So gross factual wrror, uh no.
State Court Jury Verdicts: Unanimity Not Always Required
In state courts, whether a jury needs to be unanimous depends on the state and the type of trial. For criminal trials, nearly every state requires the jury to produce a unanimous verdict.
For civil trials, almost one-third of states only require a majority for a verdict. Some states require a majority if the money at issue in the trial is below a certain amount, and a unanimous verdict all other times.
In my state, no i sm not wrong, in 16-17 other states, no i am not wrong. Since few of us will study civil case structure in the many states we carry. Probably best to err on the side of caution?Yes, you made a blanket statement - ie. all cases, not correct. Blatantly wrong.
Not even a majority of states or any federal civil case.
Even your rebuttal proves you are wrong.
So about 17-18 states require only a majority to rule. Kalif is one. So gross factual wrror, uh no.
State Court Jury Verdicts: Unanimity Not Always Required
In state courts, whether a jury needs to be unanimous depends on the state and the type of trial. For criminal trials, nearly every state requires the jury to produce a unanimous verdict.
For civil trials, almost one-third of states only require a majority for a verdict. Some states require a majority if the money at issue in the trial is below a certain amount, and a unanimous verdict all other times.
Original post: http://www.glocktalk.com/threads/le...n-to-a-carry-gun.1499097/page-2#post-20538318Spats McGee said:Caveat: I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. The comments that follow are not, and should not be construed as legal advice, but are merely commentary.
With that out of the way, at the Moment of Bang, at least two, and possibly more, legal processes are set in motion. First, there is the possible criminal case. Second, one or more possible civil actions. (One by the Bad Guy, his estate, and if you're unlucky enough to hit an innocent bystander, then possibly one the the Innocent Bystander or his or her estate.)
There are several issues to consider when pondering the advisability of gun modifications. The first is the legal impact of said modifications. For example, having a trigger pull lightened could lead to accusations that it was done recklessly, negligently, or to an unreasonably light level. This is not so much of a concern in the case of an SD shooting where the shooter will likely have to admit that he intentionally shot the BG, but does raise concerns in the negligence context. For example, imagine that SD Shooter draws his gun, and BG McBaddy stops in his tracks. Knowing that he might no longer have to shoot BG McB, SD decides to hold off on squeezing the trigger. Through a combination of adrenaline and a lightened trigger, SD accidentally/negligently discharges a round, wounding BG. The argument could then be made that the trigger job was done in a negligent manner, or perhaps that it was negligent of him to carry a firearm that he knew had been modified in such a way. The question to ask, IMHO, is: Does the modification carry a large enough benefit to warrant the additional risk?
The second issue to be considered is one of jury perception. In addition to ay legal arguments that could be made, everyone who carries a firearm should consider what a jury is likely to think about the firearm that is used in a shooting. Is there really any difference between a .223 round fired from an AR and a .223 round fired from a Mini-14 ranch rifle? No. Not to "gun folks." The SD shooter cannot count on the jury being made up of gun folks, though. To many non-gun folks, the gun fired makes a big difference. And you can bet that an anti-gun prosecutor will tell them that they can judge an SD shooter's mindset by the weapon that he carries. If it has a Death's Head carved into the grips, an anti-gun prosecutor will show pictures of it every chance he gets. Again, the question to ask is: Does the modification carry enough benefit to warrant the additional risk?
Sometimes, the answer is yes. Sometimes, it's no. If you decide that the answer is yes, you need to be sure that you can clearly articulate to your lawer exactly what benefits come with the modifications you choose. That way, your lawyer will know exactly what questions to ask if and when you (heaven forbid) ever have to take the stand to defend those modifications.