Modifications to carry weapon

[turnandshoot4]

Would there be an issue in court if I had a non-stock trigger? I have a g19 with a ghost trigger and a g21 with a stock trigger. I opt to carry the g23 because it is unmodified.

 

[melensdad]

Any good attorney will make a big deal out of anything he can grasp at that could be played up as an issue.

There are often reports on the gun forums about trigger jobs and also about handloaded ammunition as potential issues. Honestly I don't know if either is a REAL issue, but I suspect that a lawyer can figure out a way to make anything sound bad. Lighten up the trigger pull and he will call it a hair trigger? Load your own ammo and it will likely be claimed that factory ammo isn't deadly enough for you so you make special extra power loads?

Personally, I wouldn't carry a gun that had a lighted trigger pull, but I don't see an issue with carrying a gun that had action work to smooth out a gritty action. The smoothing could be argued as a repair. But lightening a trigger probably could be made into a big liability issue by the wrong lawyer. JMO

 

[Scam1789]

I agree that a lawyer can spin anything, there was a very good article in American Handgunner's personal defense 2008 annual called "After the shooting stops (A prosecutor's view of what to expect)" that had some very good perspectives on carrying. One thing the author reiterated several times was that you need to be able to explain to a jury that is probably not your peer group why you chose the weapon you carry.

Another point the article brought up was that your gun would obviously be confiscated, and most likely would not be returned in the same condition. So you might now want to have your best gun be the gun you end up having to shoot someone with. Probably not a huge concern with your 2 glocks, but someone would probably not want to carry a "$3,000 ivory stocked .45"

 

[obijohn]

a more user friendly trigger can be defended. the approach is one of safety. the fact that the trigger is more easily manipulated thereby making hits on target easier to get, etc. of course, with adrenaline running, a light trigger could lead to an accidental discharge. stay with the stock trigger on the glock, it is plenty light enough for accurate shooting.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Thanks everyone. Keep them coming!

 

[rhino]

As mentioned, the key is being able to articulate why you made the modifications and why 1) they made you and bystanders more safe, and 2) they did not compromise anyone else's safety.

If you have a long history of training and shooting in competition with exactly the same kind of guns you carry, then you (or rather your lawyer) can easily refute such attacks. You're using what you've been trained to use.

 

[melensdad]

If you have a long history of training and shooting in competition with exactly the same kind of guns you carry, then you (or rather your lawyer) can easily refute such attacks. You're using what you've been trained to use.

I tend to disagree that it can be easily refuted at all.

Remember, the premise of this discussion is: Would there be an issue in court if I had a non-stock trigger? So if you are in court, then you are in some sort of trouble. Even defending yourself in a justifiable shooting is a legal problem because the DA can drop the charges but the family of the guy you shot can take you to civil court where the burden of proof is much lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt.

Having sat on a jury for a murder trial I can tell you that the lawyers will sensationalize a point, they play it up, play on emotion, and make it bigger than life. It is a very very difficult job, if not impossible, to shake that from your mind. Now the opposing lawyer, your lawyer defending your fancy trigger job, will use logic, but the minds of the jury will not necessarily focus on it. At best your lawyer will be doing "damage control" and will be on his heels doing defense.

As for the concept of using what you train with that sounds good outside of court. But please let me submit that you are a NASCAR driver and you are used to driving ultra high performance vehicles, so when you are caught racing on main street in town and you run over a baby stroller that high performance vehicle will be the culprit, it is too highly tuned, too powerful, to high strung to be used in the real world. It may be great on a race track where there are no cross streets, no pedestrians and no old geezers driving slow in the left lane, but its not appropriate for the real world. Ditto your fancy trigger job, with its hyper-responsive tuned and tricked trigger. In the competitive arena where there are range safety officers and only one person shooting at steel targets with no possibility of hitting the wrong person, then its a fine gun. On the street where there are distractions, where you don't necessarily know the whole story, and where conditions are not controlled, then the gun with the fancy trigger job is a liability.

Seriously, get yourself a whole legal team just like O.J. did and not just a lawyer you find in the phonebook if you think it is easy to refute this stuff.

 

[melensdad]

Now let me say that I have modified several of my carry weapons, but the modifications are limited to cosmetics. I may change the colors, install custom grips, but I don't lighten the triggers, so there are some custom touches that I think will pass muster in court without any issues.

But I think even changing the grip panels can get you in trouble if you choose the wrong grip design. For example, if you put on grip panels that show an image of Satan, the Grim Reaper or perhaps the Punisher Skull then I think a lawyer will make a big deal about the fact that you were just itching to kill someone. I'll put on polymer ivory, or engraved high grade wood, or birdseye maple or something that is far less threatening. Somehow I think it would be harder for a lawyer to make an issue out of a beautiful piece of wood than out of a satanic or violent looking image. JMHO

Seriously, which grip does your lawyer want you to have on your gun if he has to defend you in court?

 

[bwframe]

If your gun looks stock and, or not like a race gun, is this something that will be discovered? I mean, assuming you haven't went to an extremely light pull for your carry gun.

Another question then also begs to be answered. What if you've laid down mucho denero for a gun with a guys name on it? Wouldn't it be expected to have a very good trigger, including being lighter, than those sold for a quarter of the price?

 

[melensdad]

If your gun looks stock and, or not like a race gun, is this something that will be discovered? I mean, assuming you haven't went to an extremely light pull for your carry gun.

Questions will be asked, you could lie in court, but that is also a crime.

Another question then also begs to be answered. What if you've laid down mucho denero for a gun with a guys name on it? Wouldn't it be expected to have a very good trigger, including being lighter, than those sold for a quarter of the price?

There are probably not a lot of Les Bear or Wilson Combat custom carry pistols with light triggers but those same guns will have smooth triggers. Those are still 'stock' triggers.

 

[Scam1789]

As for the concept of using what you train with that sounds good outside of court.

Great examples... A good lawyer can spin something as well. Training is something we do to make sure we know how to use our guns safely and efficiently, but that can be turned into "look at how much training the defendant had with his weapon. He is obviously a trained killer."

You have to watch anything you say as a defense, and try to see all the angles. If you used a gun with a modified part, I would stick to saying things about making the gun safer to protect yourself, and those around you.

 

[Ri22o]

As for the concept of using what you train with that sounds good outside of court. But please let me submit that you are a NASCAR driver and you are used to driving ultra high performance vehicles, so when you are caught racing on main street in town and you run over a baby stroller that high performance vehicle will be the culprit, it is too highly tuned, too powerful, to high strung to be used in the real world. It may be great on a race track where there are no cross streets, no pedestrians and no old geezers driving slow in the left lane, but its not appropriate for the real world.

Saying that is like saying that guns kill people. Guns don't kill people, and cars don't drive un-assisted. You must be held accountable for your actions, regardless of how you got there. A 95 horsepower 1992 1.8 litre Mitsubushi Eclipse is just as capable of running over a stroller as a NASCAR. Just because you have 500 horsepower doesn't mean you drive like you have 500 horsepower, and just because you have 95 horsepower doesn't mean you don't drive like you have 500 horsepower.

If a 3.5 pound connector gives a smoother pull than the factory 5 pound connector, who's to say that the 'highly tuned' trigger isn't going to give a more steady follow up which results in less chance of a missed shot and possibly hitting an innocent bystander. Thus making the lighter connector safer than the original factory one.

 

[Zephri]

So, does replacing your stock sights with let's say night sights constitute as 'modified'.

 

[Ri22o]

So, does replacing your stock sights with let's say night sights constitute as 'modified'.

I was thinking of this earlier too.

Also, how would a 15 round magazine look as compared to a 10 round magazine?

If you carried two (2) extra 15 round magazines on you, would that look bad as well?

 

[Ri22o]

I know this is a little off topic, but it also has to do with the 'appearance' of the gun.

Would it negatively effect the jury's opinion of you if you used 'Law Enforcement Use Only' labeled ammo? Both the Federal HST and Federal 00 Buck that I just bought both come labeled as LE Only, Although it is just a Federal company policy and not a law.

 

[Zephri]

Don't know about you, but wouldn't the jury be more worried about what happened when you defended yourself, than what you defended yourself with? I mean really? They want to know what happened when the situation occurred, so they can dish out a just sentence, they really don,t need to know what kind of gun you used other than you used a gun, other than that it's weather you used force appropriately or not, given your situation.

 

[Ri22o]

Don't know about you, but wouldn't the jury be more worried about what happened when you defended yourself, than what you defended yourself with? I mean really? They want to know what happened when the situation occurred, so they can dish out a just sentence, they really don,t need to know what kind of gun you used other than you used a gun, other than that it's weather you used force appropriately or not, given your situation.

In a perfect world, yes. In today's world, probably not. If you shot someone in your house with a wood stocked shotgun as opposed to a pistol gripped 'tactical' shotgun, the wood stocked shotgun wouldn't look as 'bad' as the tactical "I'm going to go crazy and kill people" shotgun.

 

[Zephri]

I really don't think the jury would be so single minded to stay on the topic of what gun you used, if they did that then none of these cases would be resolved.

 

[Ri22o]

I really don't think the jury would be so single minded to stay on the topic of what gun you used, if they did that then none of these cases would be resolved.

But, you also have to remember that the attorney's are going to pick the juror(s) that they feel will best benefit them and their case. So, if in jury selection they feel that a juror or jurors suits their needs to get the verdict in their favor, they will pick them.

I know this is a bad reference, but in the movie Jury Duty with Pauly Shore, he made a comment about being able to protect your home (even though he made the comment only to be dismissed). The item on the table was an RPG. Obviously the Plaintiff's (or in this case it was probably the State) attorney will dismiss the juror while the Defendant's attorney would want to keep the juror on board.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I too believe that the trial should be about why the person was shot, and not with what they were shot. If the shooting was justifiable then what they were shot with should not matter.

 

[Zephri]

Well I never did watch any court shows, let alone studied our justice system in school. But I'm pretty sure the attorney's can't pick any juror they want, If they could then court would be really one sided.