Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Carry Issues (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   How many of you use a 3.5lb connector on your carry piece (w/o a NY1)? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1354205)

datnvan 05-19-2011 12:00

trigger mods and the legality of it all
 
Moderator Note: I merged 5 different threads on the "3.5 lb/lighter trigger pulls" topic into this single source for those discussions and re-stickied the thread.

Please, keep your comments civil and on topic.

Thanks...
****************************************************************



serious question for CHL holders:

i've had my chl for almost 4 years now. carried several different guns on different occasions but pretty much carried 100% of the time. all of my handguns have always been unmodified internally. neither the fire control group nor the triggers were ever messed with. and the reason i didnt mod them was to avoid any extra legal ramifications on top of trying to convince a grand jury my shooting a bad guy was justified.

does my concern have any validity? i'm in TX by the way.

QuicksilverJPR 05-19-2011 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by datnvan (Post 17369043)
serious question for CHL holders:

i've had my chl for almost 4 years now. carried several different guns on different occasions but pretty much carried 100% of the time. all of my handguns have always been unmodified internally. neither the fire control group nor the triggers were ever messed with. and the reason i didnt mod them was to avoid any extra legal ramifications on top of trying to convince a grand jury my shooting a bad guy was justified.

does my concern have any validity? i'm in TX by the way.

Not entirely sure of Texas self defense laws, but if the DA/police deem my shoot is a good one, I can not be held criminally or civilly liable in my state no matter what equipment or ammunition I use...

PEC-Memphis 05-19-2011 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by datnvan (Post 17369043)
serious question for CHL holders:

i've had my chl for almost 4 years now. carried several different guns on different occasions but pretty much carried 100% of the time. all of my handguns have always been unmodified internally. neither the fire control group nor the triggers were ever messed with. and the reason i didnt mod them was to avoid any extra legal ramifications on top of trying to convince a grand jury my shooting a bad guy was justified.

does my concern have any validity? i'm in TX by the way.

The "sticky" thread also has references to at least two other threads which also provide good information. Reading the three threads will give you almost every possible viewpoint on both sides of the argument.

Something that is often overlooked, is how will a firearm modified outside of manufacturer recommendations and LEA standard practice be presented by a prosecuting attorney, and how will it be viewed by a jury, if your shot finds an innocent bystander.

===========

Many (most?) lawyers will agree that castle laws which give immunity to a civil suit for failure to prosecute, or a criminal finding of "not guilty", will eventually be overturned on constitutional grounds. This is because the burden of proof is very different for criminal (reasonable doubt) vs. civil (preponderance of evidence) cases. And the government cannot grant immunity to a person from being sued by another as this would be violating the rights of the person (possibly) wronged. There just hasn't been a good case to "come along" to challenge the law.

Patchman 05-20-2011 04:23

If it's legal, it's appropriate.

Yes?

Bren 05-20-2011 04:33

The truth is, there is nothing to be gained by modifying your CCW gun like the cool guys in the gun magazines do, so why take any risk at all to do it?

swinokur 05-20-2011 05:18

I think Mas has addressed this issue. Not sure if it's a sticky. My Glocks have stock triggers. You can train for them and not have any concerns about a ADA coming after you because you intentionally modified the fire control system.It would be hard to explain to a jury of non shooters why this was necessary. May be ok for a competition gun, but not a carry piece IMO. IANAL.

heliguy 05-20-2011 07:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by datnvan (Post 17369043)
serious question for CHL holders:

i've had my chl for almost 4 years now. carried several different guns on different occasions but pretty much carried 100% of the time. all of my handguns have always been unmodified internally. neither the fire control group nor the triggers were ever messed with. and the reason i didnt mod them was to avoid any extra legal ramifications on top of trying to convince a grand jury my shooting a bad guy was justified.

does my concern have any validity? i'm in TX by the way.

ABSOLUTELY it has validity! A jury is made up of people. They have biases, misinformation, media hyped memories and potentially jaded view of gun ownership. You get a prosecutor who can hype up your specially modified gun designed to ensure spectacular deaths with a head shot scattering brainmatter over the bodies of little children standing around.....And you are toast.

Your defense atty can logically explain in detail the depth of research you made about the parts installation to ensure the saftey of those around the perp.....But people are people, just take a look at how "hopey changey" got the great black dope elected.....But I digress....

David Armstrong 05-20-2011 09:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman (Post 17372690)
If it's legal, it's appropriate.

Yes?

No. Lots of things that are legal are not appropriate, or even a good idea.

David Armstrong 05-20-2011 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bren (Post 17372701)
The truth is, there is nothing to be gained by modifying your CCW gun like the cool guys in the gun magazines do, so why take any risk at all to do it?

That is the key. For most there is nothing to be gained, but it opens you to an added element of risk. Any modification that takes a gun outside of the factory recommendations or the industry norms becomes problematic and you need to be prepared to justify the modification. Sometimes that is pretty easy, but many other times it is very questionable.

txinvestigator 05-20-2011 11:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuicksilverJPR (Post 17369142)
Not entirely sure of Texas self defense laws, but if the DA/police deem my shoot is a good one, I can not be held criminally or civilly liable in my state no matter what equipment or ammunition I use...

That is not accurate entirely accurate for Texas.

Here, if you met the justification in chapter 9 of the penal code then you are justified. Even if you use a bazooka and rail gun. (that does not account for the SEPERATE charge you could get for the possession of the bazooka)

Here, civil courts decide on their own regarding your justification. I don't know of a case where a modified trigger, in a justified self defense shooting, caused any problems. IMO, it really does not matter.

Bren 05-20-2011 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Armstrong (Post 17373472)
That is the key. For most there is nothing to be gained, but it opens you to an added element of risk. Any modification that takes a gun outside of the factory recommendations or the industry norms becomes problematic and you need to be prepared to justify the modification. Sometimes that is pretty easy, but many other times it is very questionable.

Exactly. Modifications to the gun are unlikely to ever be an issue. You are very unlikely to ever use your gun and if you do shoot a person, gun modifications are very unlikely to come up, unless the shooting was unintentional or legally questionable. So the risk with modifications is very low. BUT the value of the modifications is even lower, so the risk isn't justified when you weigh the possible gain against it.

Bren 05-20-2011 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by txinvestigator (Post 17373880)
That is not accurate entirely accurate for Texas.

Here, if you met the justification in chapter 9 of the penal code then you are justified. Even if you use a bazooka and rail gun. (that does not account for the SEPERATE charge you could get for the possession of the bazooka)

Here, civil courts decide on their own regarding your justification. I don't know of a case where a modified trigger, in a justified self defense shooting, caused any problems. IMO, it really does not matter.

You assume a justified shooting. However, CCWers may occasionally negligently fire off a round in the Wal Mart or on the street, or maybe miss the bad guy and hit somebody else, or foolishly mess up a justified self-defense shooting by saying something dumb like "I didn't mean to shoot, I was only holding him at gunpoint" for an instantly unjustified shooting.

Those are the times when a modified gun, especially one with a lighter trigger, is a big, big problem.

tonyparson 05-20-2011 14:03

How about if you use JHP ammo instead of FMJ or you use +P+ ammo instead of standard ammo? I mean if you think about it the DA can say or use what ever he wants to try to sway the jury his way..

RYT 2BER 05-20-2011 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis (Post 17370017)

===========

Many (most?) lawyers will agree that castle laws which give immunity to a civil suit for failure to prosecute, or a criminal finding of "not guilty", will eventually be overturned on constitutional grounds. This is because the burden of proof is very different for criminal (reasonable doubt) vs. civil (preponderance of evidence) cases. And the government cannot grant immunity to a person from being sued by another as this would be violating the rights of the person (possibly) wronged. There just hasn't been a good case to "come along" to challenge the law.

Not sure you're right... you are referring to the Seventh obviously.. but here are some highlights:

The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution,
which is part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to a jury
trial in certain civil cases. Unlike most of the Bill of Rights,
the Supreme Court has not incorporated the amendment's requirements to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

-Now I think the legal key here is that the amendment states that a person is entitled to a jury trial in civil cases (this assumes the case is "brought"), I believe in the case of the Castle Doctrine, the "case" cannot be brought through immunization, therefore there is no trial and no jury.

Its hair splitting but apparently it holds...As far as not having a good case come along? :dunno: I recently read an article (and had a conversation with the author) who had reported that there have been almost 100 Castle Doctine aqcuitals in Florida since the law went on the books. Id say if it hasnt happened already, it probably holds water...

datnvan 05-20-2011 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyparson (Post 17374495)
How about if you use JHP ammo instead of FMJ or you use +P+ ammo instead of standard ammo? I mean if you think about it the DA can say or use what ever he wants to try to sway the jury his way..

use of factory jhp has been addressed before and i feel 100% comfortable carrying any factory jhp. my primary sd ammo is speer LE gold dot 124+p. i also have several boxes of various other brand jhp. all readily available here in tx and all i wouldnt hesitate to carry. the problem i see is you alter the internal workings of the gun. things that the manufacturer did not want, if they did they would have made it that way. to a shooter they may be improvements, to a jury/DA they may be considered unecessary and excessive. probably wont come up in a criminal trial but chances are it may show up in a civil court. as with many other cases, you may be innocent in criminal court but guilty in civil court.

David Armstrong 05-20-2011 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyparson (Post 17374495)
How about if you use JHP ammo instead of FMJ or you use +P+ ammo instead of standard ammo? I mean if you think about it the DA can say or use what ever he wants to try to sway the jury his way..

Sure, but in that case the defense is easy....you have used the same type of ammo that is recommended for SD by most everyone, including the local police. It is when you do things that are contrary to the accepted standards that it becomes troublesome.

Patchman 05-20-2011 19:22

Conflicting standards, perhaps.

FMJ are required for armies under the Hague Convention of 1899. That convention moved away from expanding type bullets because they were deemed too cruel.

Sure the current argument is that FMJs have more tendency than HPs to to over-penetrate, and thus, potentially pose a threat to any bystander behind the BG. But it's beyond the shooter's control if the BG turns out to be skinny rather that fat. In any case, the average American in 2011 is much more fatter than the average European in 1899.

Of course, there's also the "if FMJs are legal, they're appropriate" argument.

For your consideration.

ranburr1 05-20-2011 23:55

It will never be an issue for you in TX.

Jayock 05-21-2011 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman (Post 17375735)
Conflicting standards, perhaps.

FMJ are required for armies under the Hague Convention of 1899. That convention moved away from expanding type bullets because they were deemed too cruel.

One of the big reasons that was agreed to is because they are arguably more effective in a war scenario. If you severely injure a soldier, you have the potential to stop multiple soldiers from fighting, vis-a-vis an additional soldier or two helping the wounded get clear of fire and get medical aid. Kill him, and you have only take out one.

The arguments that have held up in court in favor of JHP are:

1. They stop the threat more quickly.
2. They have less tendency to over-penetrate *as you stated
3. They have less tendency for ricochet.

I'd also like to point out that in war, over-penetration is a GOOD thing. goes through some light barriers, has the potential to wound additional targets, etc. In civilian life, we don't really want that. A 45ACP ball might be ok on a fat target, but a 9mm or 357sig in hard ball will go through most targets, no matter how obese. And they would do very little to ensure a quick stop to the threat.

MinervaDoe 05-21-2011 11:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman (Post 17375735)
FMJ are required for armies under the Hague Convention of 1899. That convention moved away from expanding type bullets because they were deemed too cruel.

The attached link is good reading and makes some of the same points you guys are making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:13.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.