Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-22-2017, 7:31 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 11,046
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Civil law washes much of this out. An affirmative-action jury willing to award the lottery to a perp with only a 50% plus one threshold can be your worst day in court here in California.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-22-2017, 9:39 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,289
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
Re-read all 3 lines of what he wrote...



He said nothing specific about using deadly force in any of those situations.
Perhaps I should have copied more of what he wrote, as he specifically spoke about the use of deadly force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DNA View Post
A good shot is where you have articulable facts which led you to believe you were justified in the use of deadly force. For those having a hard time...


Reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully,

Reasonably believed that you needed to use force to prevent that from happening, and

Used no more force than was necessary to prevent that from happening.

Dan

You might also note the caption of this thread, "any Trigger Work automatically an issue in a shoot?", if you don't believe his post was about the use of deadly force; "an issue in a shoot".

Last edited by Chewy65; 09-22-2017 at 9:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-22-2017, 10:20 AM
CSACANNONEER's Avatar
CSACANNONEER CSACANNONEER is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 41,944
iTrader: 127 / 100%
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Here is a link to Ayoob's article citing two cases that he was personally involved with in which the hair trigger was a problem.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/conceal...liability.html
So, even Ayoob can not cite a case where a modified trigger resulted in a conviction in an otherwise lawful shooting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
And on this audio attorney Andrew Branca is interviewed and explains why modification which affect the firing functions of a gun are a bad idea when you plan to carry the gun or use it for self defense. Mr. Branca is an attorney in Massachusetts who has specialized in self defense law since 1997.

The interview is somewhat long but very much worth listening to.

And Marty Hayes provide an interesting article on the subject here, in the September 2013 edition of the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network Journal..
However, that is just an opinion. An opinion from an educated and experienced self defense lawyer but, still just an opinion. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it. When it comes to many aspects of CCWing, I am of the mindset that everyone needs to do their own research and stay within their own personal level of comfort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootstrap View Post
Hair triggers with a nice quick reset allow multiple shots into the perp because once they are on the ground, CA law prevents you from shooting them any further.

It's the most humane way to neutralize the threat.
Really? Please cite the California law which prohibits shooting a still imminent threat just because it is "on the ground". I bet you also believe that California law prohibits shooting an imminent threat in the back. LOL. Please stop spreading this FUD and absolute garbage and go get some real training pertaining to California laws and the use of lethal in self defense.
__________________
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun and Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor
California DOJ Certified Fingerprint Roller
Ventura County approved CCW Instructor


Offering low cost private basic shooting and reloading classes for calgunners.

CCW SAFE MEMBERSHIPS HERE
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-22-2017, 10:52 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
....that is just an opinion. An opinion from an educated and experienced self defense lawyer but, still just an opinion. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it. When it comes to many aspects of CCWing, I am of the mindset that everyone needs to do their own research and stay within their own personal level of comfort....
Of course Branca's opinion is just an opinion. But the opinions of someone educated and experienced in a particular field can mean something and be worth paying attention to. And all opinions aren't equal.

So on tax matters I pay much more attention to the opinion of my educated and experienced CPA than I do to the tax notions of my plumber. But if my problem is a leaky faucet, I'm going to listen to my plumber, not my accountant (unless it's about the tax deductibility of the repair costs).

And in any case everyone is going to do his own research and make his own decisions. But how well those decisions are likely to work out to be is going to depend a lot on how good his research was. And part of research is deciding what opinions to pay attention to.

And while comfort zones can be nice, comfort can turn out to be an illusion.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by fiddletown; 09-22-2017 at 2:56 PM.. Reason: Correct typo
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-22-2017, 11:09 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,289
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
So, even Ayoob can not cite a case where a modified trigger resulted in a conviction in an otherwise lawful shooting.
What is the difference in the real world. The purpose of cocking the hammer on a modern revolver is to lighten the trigger. In one case, the prosecutor will introduce evidence, probably by expert testimony and direct testimony of the police technician, to the effect that the purpose of cocking the hammer was to enable the shoot with a lighter trigger pull. In the other the prosecutor puts on evidence that the purpose of modifying the trigger is the same.

Last edited by Chewy65; 09-22-2017 at 11:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-22-2017, 4:06 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 749
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
Really? Please cite the California law which prohibits shooting a still imminent threat just because it is "on the ground". I bet you also believe that California law prohibits shooting an imminent threat in the back. LOL. Please stop spreading this FUD and absolute garbage and go get some real training pertaining to California laws and the use of lethal in self defense.
Keenly aware that ability, opportunity and life in jeopardy are the 3 elements to beat homicide/manslaughter charges. Ability and opportunity can vary in distance by the number of threats, the ability to flee and the types of weapons involved

A bit of satire in my previous post. Point being stopping an imminent threat as quickly as possible to avoid any "my plaintiff was wriggling on the ground and you used excessive force" by an overzealous DA.
__________________
Department of Homeland Security lists select-fire AR-15s with 30 round mags as suitable for personal defense

If registering an "assault weapon", consider attaching a note with the photo stating "submitting under duress and coercion as California's laws defining "assault weapons" are more restrictive than the purview of the Federal National Firearms Act. CA's "assault weapon" registration process has caused undue burden . V.C. {FirstName LastName}
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-22-2017, 5:53 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
I guess you prefer ignorance to knowledge.
I greatly prefer knowledge but since you haven't posted anything that's on topic in quite some time, I see no reason to waste my time on your off topic rant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
I spent a lot more than 39 minutes learning what I know.
I'm sure that you did. As did I. But you're espousing your knowledge on something that no one is disagreeing with and that is probably general knowledge. I doubt that there's anyone here who does not realize that using a gun in self defense can result in serious issues with the law whether it's a good shoot or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
If you can't spend 39 minutes on this that explains why you don't actually know much.
It's a moronic position to think that you know how "much [ I ] actually know," based on a few exchanges here.

Perhaps if lately anything you'd posted anything in this thread, even remotely, had to do with the topic, can the modification of a gun get cause some issues after a shooting, I'd take the time. Since you've not been on topic recently so far, I see no reason to waste any of my time on your audio track. If you'd like to continue the discussion, please answer my simple, direct question, and let me know where the information that's relevant to this topic is on the audio. Given your recent history in this thread, it's quite possible that there's not any information there that's pertinent to the topic.
__________________
Why would anyone trust the opinion of a person that can't or won't answer simple, direct, questions without evasion or ignoring them completely?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-22-2017, 5:53 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Of course Branca's opinion is just an opinion. But the opinions of someone educated and experienced in a particular field can mean something and be worth paying attention to. And all opinions aren't equal.
I agree, it's just an opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
So on tax matters I pay much more attention to the opinion of my educated and experienced CPA than I do to the tax notions of my plumber. But if my problem is a leaky faucet, I'm going to listen to my plumber, not my accountant (unless it's about the tax deductibility of the repair costs).
I'd bet that your "educated and experienced CPA" can cite legal cases, one after another, where someone who hid income, was prosecuted, fined and went to jail. But here, folks have asked for the analogous cases on someone who's modified their gun, particularly their trigger, and has suffered a similar fate. The sound of the crickets is deafening. The only cases that have been shown are ones of NDs, NOT of 'modify a trigger – go to jail' that we'd be seeing if this really was an issue. NOT EVEN ONE, and people have been modifying their guns for decades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
And in any case everyone is going to do his own research and make his own decisions. But how well those decisions are likely to work out to be is going to depend a lot on how good his research was. And part of research is deciding what opinions to pay attention to.
No matter how good someone's opinions are, if this was REALLY an issue it's reasonable to ask for cases to support that opinion. So far, NOTHING has been shown to support that opinion. This is a great example of begging the question. Pretending that the question has been answered, when, in fact, it's not even been truly addressed.
__________________
Why would anyone trust the opinion of a person that can't or won't answer simple, direct, questions without evasion or ignoring them completely?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-22-2017, 6:34 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
....No matter how good someone's opinions are, if this was REALLY an issue it's reasonable to ask for cases to support that opinion. So far, NOTHING has been shown to support that opinion. This is a great example of begging the question. Pretending that the question has been answered, when, in fact, it's not even been truly addressed.
Actually. it's a red herring. I'll let a colleague of mine, known on The High Road and on The Firing Line as Spats McGee, and who is a lawyer in Arkansas, explain why. He does so in this post on TFL, and while the subject is handloads, it works the same way when dealing with a modified trigger (emphasis added):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
First, my caveat and my bona fides. My caveat: I’m a lawyer, but I’m not your lawyer. What follows is commentary based upon my education and experience, but it is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, go hire a lawyer licensed in the applicable jurisdiction. As for my bona fides: I am an attorney and I’ve been practicing in litigation for almost fifteen years as of this writing. I am licensed in the Arkansas state and federal district courts, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. I’ve been studying firearms laws in earnest since ~2007.

One of the most contentious and misunderstood of all topics that I have ever run across in gun forums is the issue of using handloads or reloads as self-defense rounds....

One of the common fallacies that I see in The Handload Debate stems from a misunderstanding of our legal reporting system. All too often, I see posters claiming that someone needs to “show them the case” in which something has happened, either supporting or condemning the idea of using handloads. ... Nonetheless, it’s important to understand ... that can be an impossibly tall order. In the United States, we have 50 independent state judiciary systems (each of which may include courts at the city, county and state levels), the District of Columbia, and a federal judiciary system overlaid on top of all of that. What’s more, not every case is reported, either in the news or in our legal reporter system. One of the things that lawyers do is extract legal principles from seemingly disparate cases, and apply those principles to the case at hand. ...

Still, let’s take a brief look at how The Case might conceptually come into existence. In order for there to be a useful opinion out there, The Case has to have been tried and appealed, and an appellate court has to have issued an opinion on that issue. Those are the very broad strokes. More specficially, here’s the necessary chain of events to produce The case for purposes of The Handload Debate:
1. Someone has to:
a. use handloads

b. in a shooting.
2. As a result of that shooting, either a civil case or a criminal case (or both) has to have been initiated;

3. The case(s) initiated in step 2 have to go to trial without a settlement or plea deal being reached;

4. In the course of those cases, there must be a dispute over evidence related to the handloads (otherwise, the appellate court likely won’t talk about that evidence)

5. The case has to have been appealed by someone (and in criminal cases, the State rarely gets to appeal);

6. In that appeal, someone has to claim that the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of the handload-related evidence constituted reversible error; AND

7. The appellate court has to actually discuss the issue of the admissibility of the handload-related evidence in its opinion.
If any one of the above is lacking, there’s no useful appellate opinion for us to dissect. This constellation of necessary events has left us in a position that there is, in fact, very little in discoverable case law to illuminate the pitfalls of using handloads for SD. My Westlaw account allows me to search all federal and state courts in the U.S., and I’ve run a bunch of searches over the years.

The other problem with insisting on The Case is that the requestor can set an impossibly high bar. As I saw it phrased in one internet dispute: “I still have not seen a case where an unquestionable defensive shoot led to a conviction for wrongdoing because of the equipment used.” That statement overlooks several very important points. Two of them are: (1) someone involved in an SD shooting doesn’t get to decide whether his or her case will be “unquestionable,” and (2) the use of handloads could complicate the process of determining whether the SD shoot was lawful (“unquestionable”) or not.

...

There are a lot of moving pieces here. I know that. However, it’s as much about the stakes as the odds, right? The odds of ever having to use the gun I carry are extremely slim, but if I ever do have to, the stakes are incredibly high: The lives of myself and my family. The Peculiar Problem of Handloads is similar. The odds of handloads ever developing into a real legal problem for someone involved in a SD shooting are very low. If it does, however, the stakes are very high. The use of handloads can muddy the evidentiary waters, causing incorrect conclusions from investigators, experts, and the prosecutors who rely on them. In turn, that could lead to incorrect criminal charges, or necessitate the hiring of additional experts on the defense side to head off whatever problems may have been caused. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t have tens of thousands of dollars to hire extra experts for my criminal defense. Heaven forbid that I’m ever involved in a shooting, but I don’t want the waters muddied. I want the evidence to be as clear and simple as I can make it.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-22-2017, 9:48 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Actually. it's a red herring.
There ARE a couple of "red herring[s]" here. They are your attempts to divert the conversation away from the topic and 1. onto the fact, that is pretty much generally agreed to that getting involved in a self–defense shooting can be costly, in terms of money, time and freedom. And 2. Whining about how difficult it is to find cases to support your argument.

From the website, "Logical Fallacies," http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/

Quote:
The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic ...
Many of the fallacies of relevance can take red herring form. An appeal to pity, for example, can be used to distract from the issue at hand ... [Hmmm. This sounds a bit like you and Spats telling us how difficult it is to find cases to support your opinion].
Asking for support for a position that someone has taken IS NOT a red herring and making such a claim is ludicrous.

From Wikipedia,

Quote:
The expression is mainly used to assert that an argument is not relevant to the issue being discussed. For example, "I think we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend you support this because we are in a budget crisis, and we do not want our salaries affected." The second sentence, though used to support the first sentence, does not address that topic.
This example sounds very much like your diversion away from the topic and towards the general discussion that being involved in a self defense shooting can be extremely troublesome. I suggest that before you accuse someone of using a logical fallacy that you actually investigate the meaning of the phrase. It fits your argument far better than it fits anyone else's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
I'll let a colleague of mine, known on The High Road and on The Firing Line as Spats McGee, and who is a lawyer in Arkansas, explain why. He does so in this post on TFL, and while the subject is handloads, it works the same way when dealing with a modified trigger (emphasis added):
I'll agree that the issue of using handloads is similar to"dealing with a modified trigger." Citing the part that you emphasized,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
... not every case is reported, either in the news or in our legal reporter system. One of the things that lawyers do is extract legal principles from seemingly disparate cases, and apply those principles to the case at hand. ...
I understand and agree that finding these cases is difficult. But it's not my problem. If you, and others, are going to claim that there's an issue with modifications and handloads, the burden to show that issue is on you. Do the research or don't, I don't care. Whining about how difficult it is to find the cases, is pathetic, and far from convincing. Over decades of self defense shootings, there has to be AT LEAST ONE SUCH CASE if there is an issue. Yet all you give us is yet another opinion and not one single case where it came into play.

Instead of wasting our time with excuses, perhaps your time would be better spent in looking for cases to support your argument?
__________________
Why would anyone trust the opinion of a person that can't or won't answer simple, direct, questions without evasion or ignoring them completely?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-22-2017, 10:23 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
....Instead of wasting our time with excuses, perhaps your time would be better spent in looking for cases to support your argument?
We don't care if you believe us. What happens to you and others is won't be our problems.

You've heard from three lawyers who think it's unwise to use a gun with a modified trigger (or handloads) for self defense. We base our views on a considerable amount of knowledge and education in the working of the law and the legal system.

Our knowledge and understanding of law and the workings of the legal system have been tested in the real world pretty much every day of our working lives in front of judges, regulators, elected officials, arbitrators and other lawyers, both colleagues and adversaries. We have been able to use our knowledge and understanding of the law and the workings of the legal system to further the interests of real people.

And none of use use guns with modified triggers for self defense.

What you choose to do is not really our concern.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-23-2017, 1:02 AM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 9,395
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

There was an interesting thread on pistol-forum recently that dealt with "punisher" logos being on defensive firearms. A few defense lawyers/prosecutors spoke up, and their general comments were pretty eye opening.

I'll link directly to some specific posts: ( feel free to read the rest of the thread )


https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post643762

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post644142

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post644154

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post644594

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post644638




And a little while later they had a smaller thread just on triggers...

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post648864

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post648983

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post648997

Anyways, just something to think about.

-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-23-2017, 7:17 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
We don't care if you believe us. What happens to you and others is won't be our problems.
Of course you care. Otherwise you'd not continue to argue your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
You've heard from three lawyers who think it's unwise to use a gun with a modified trigger (or handloads) for self defense. We base our views on a considerable amount of knowledge and education in the working of the law and the legal system.
Yep, thanks for YOUR OPINIONS. Keep in mind, that's all it is. And with decades of cases on the books NONE of you can supply EVEN ONE CASE where a modified trigger was an issue at trial. That FACT speaks volumes in the face of your OPINIONS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Our knowledge and understanding of law and the workings of the legal system have been tested in the real world pretty much every day of our working lives in front of judges, regulators, elected officials, arbitrators and other lawyers, both colleagues and adversaries.
Really? Perhaps that's true on OTHER ISSUES, but none of you has provided evidence to support your opinions on this issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
We have been able to use our knowledge and understanding of the law and the workings of the legal system to further the interests of real people.
Yeah, you're all great human beings. I get it. I see the need for lawyers, but they're just as likely to spout BS as anyone else. When asked for EVIDENCE to support their opinions on just about any topic, there's an avalanche of such support in the form of case law. Yet here, nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
And none of use use guns with modified triggers for self defense.
So you've all drunk the same Kool Aid. That should not, and does not affect the rest of the world.

I was involved in an off–duty, self–defense shooting using not only a modified gun, but carrying Glaser Safety Slugs, a round well known to destroy entire city blocks and kill babies three miles away! NEITHER the mods, nor the ammo was of the slightest interest to either the investigating agency, or the Los Angeles DA's office, known to be highly anti-gun and very politically driven. Going by your OPINION, I should have been drawn and quartered in the public square at noon. Problem is, the facts of the situation supported the use of lethal force. Everything else was just noise.

I understand the concept of not giving the prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney any material to work with, but I also understand the necessity of surviving the situation. I know which priority comes first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you choose to do is not really our concern.
The nonsense that you spout is "not really [my] concern."
__________________
Why would anyone trust the opinion of a person that can't or won't answer simple, direct, questions without evasion or ignoring them completely?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-23-2017, 7:18 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
There was an interesting thread on pistol-forum recently that dealt with "punisher" logos being on defensive firearms. A few defense lawyers/prosecutors spoke up, and their general comments were pretty eye opening.
I don't think they were "pretty eye opening." But that's just my OPINION. lol It's just more of the same thing that we're seeing here. Well educated, well formed opinions and lots of excuses as to why they can't present EVEN ONE CASE where a modified trigger was an issue at trial. Yes, I get that proving their point is hard, many things that are worthwhile are. But that's not a valid excuse for failing to support their argument. I'd guess that there have been hundreds, more than likely THOUSANDS of cases where facts of this nature played a part. Certainly ONE of them would have made it to case law. But again, they give us nothing but opinions.

This entire argument, on your side is nothing but a classic logical fallacy, the appeal to authority. 'Experts agree that ... Doctors say ... I'm a lawyer and my opinion is ...' Note the fact that it's a FALLACY. Also note that MOST of these 'authorities' remain anonymous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
I'll link directly to some specific posts: ( feel free to read the rest of the thread


And a little while later they had a smaller thread just on triggers...


Anyways, just something to think about.

-- Michael
It is "something to think about." And if one favors logical fallacies, it's a great example of one. Think about THE FACT that with all of these lawyers spouting OPINIONS NOT ONE OF THEM has supplied the slightest bit of proof to support his theory. Speaks volumes.

My bottom line ... if anyone cares. If you don't want to carry a modified gun for self defense, (realize, of course, that at any moment virtually any gun that you own can be turned to that purpose) then don't. But if you realize that this argument is COMPLETELY unsupported by any facts, and is based on an argument that is nothing but a logical fallacy, than make modifications that do not reduce safety but do make your firearm work better, smoother, more reliably, and make it easier for you to deliver accurate shots to your chosen target.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-23-2017, 7:40 AM
GlockN'Roll's Avatar
GlockN'Roll GlockN'Roll is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: SOUTHERN CAL
Posts: 2,334
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default



Has anyone seen my horse?
__________________
Carry Daily, Safely, Discreetly
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-23-2017, 8:14 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 11,046
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlockN'Roll View Post


Has anyone seen my horse?
The lawyers here have.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-23-2017, 8:37 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
... But if you realize that this argument is COMPLETELY unsupported by any facts, .....
The opinions of the lawyers are supported by facts. They are supported by the collective and accumulated knowledge and understanding of such things as the legal process, the art of advocacy, and varieties of related legal realities. If you need a nice, exactly on-point, written opinion of an appellate court, you won't get it; and the educated, knowledgeable participants have explained why.

What actually speaks volumes is that all the lawyers we've seen addressing this subject, including those with considerable experience in criminal defense litigation and self defense litigation, are unanimous. It's those ignorant and uneducated in the subject who resist because they aren’t getting exactly the type of evidence in the exact form they want.

So, for example, as one lawyer put it here (emphasis added):
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssb
....Off the top of my head, the two most likely areas for a modification to show up in an appeal are a) a claim of insufficiency of the evidence and b) a claim of inappropriate comments/questions by the prosecutor. The former claim will involve a discussion of the evidence followed by laughter/frustration from the Court of Appeals and a summary dismissal of the claim after a cursory cut-and-paste of some case law and a "a reasonable juror could find..." line. The latter will first require an objection at trial from defense counsel followed by a ruling from the judge in order to be appealable. So, when he's busy trying to **** over a good cop or citizen or something, the ****ty DA must first get past both defense counsel and the judge to even get the Court of Appeals in order for that issue to show up in that case law thing whose presence or absence is apparently going to prove everybody's point. Neither route is particularly likely to show up in an appeal in my opinion because one is simply an appellate review of the evidence submitted at trial and the other is simply the prosecutor examining the evidence in front of the jury/commenting upon the same, so barring something outlandish from the State I think that's pretty safe. Finally, the Court of Appeals isn't generally going to go digging for other questions to answer: they only answer those they were asked, and they have rather strict rules which determine which questions you're allowed to ask them.

Of course, the above would require an understanding of both trial practice and appellate procedure but I suppose you could, like, pick that up from watching a trial or something.

I'm aware of a case where a shooter inscribed a particular symbol into the wooden grip of his revolver. Did we ask the witness used to lay a foundation for that gun about that at trial? Yup. Is that an improper comment meant to do nothing more than inflame the jury? Nope, that's simply asking the witness to describe the weapon the jury later brought with them to the jury room. Did we comment on it during closing arguments? Yup. Was our objective to use that inscription to make the jury's decision to convict easier? Absolutely. Are you going to find in the case of State v. Dickhead, 123 S.W.3d 456 (2015) a paragraph from the Court of Appeals saying "yeah, it's totally cool to have a stupid carving in your revolver grip" or "no, don't carve dumb stuff into your revolver grip because that makes it automatically murder?" No, because that's not the issue that was appealed.

Massad Ayoob noted in the Zimmerman thing that the absence of a safety on Zimmerman's PF-9 was indeed an issue at trial -- not a big one, but certainly something somebody (Zimmerman) had to pay somebody to explain. The point of mentioning that is that we do pay attention to things in order to help create a narrative for the jury, and we will use anything we can to paint the picture we want. Some of us do it poorly (Angela Corey). Others do it responsibly.
As another lawyer put it here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitchell, Esq.
...I'm a lawyer. I do criminal defense work among my various jobs.

In all cases, my job is to convince people of things, so essentially, I'm a part time salesman, part time actor, part time writer & researcher...but full time bull**** salesman.

What am I selling?

I'm selling you.

I need to take you, your situation, your gear and your back story...then present it to the po-po/prosecutor/judge in a way in which they are comfortable accepting that, in conformity with the law, you committed horrifying acts of well executed violence upon your fellow man leaving someone either maimed, dead &/or in multiple pieces.

Now - self defense is based on reasonable choices, i.e. the reasonable man in your situation would have put a bullet in someone's head because it was the reasonable thing to do in that situation.

Reasonable is subjective and objective. Subjective as to you (what did you observe, how did you interpret it, did you have a good faith belief that what you observed and interpreted was a real threat that justified the actions you took?) but Objective as to the finder of fact (does the person evaluating your actions believe your actions, based on your observations/interpretations, was something that, for lack of a better term, made sense& are something that society will tolerate - given the right situation, blowing limbs off people with shotguns is acceptable...because the sales pitch is everything)....
...

In that case, your punisher logo is not going to help me make the sale.

It will not help me connect with the jury.

It will not help you convince people that you were acting as a reasonable person because unfortunately, packaging matters.
And as a knowledgeable LEO put it here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's
....I think people imagine that every shooting is like the first one. It's clear cut, it's provable, and (criminally) that's pretty much it. Few are as jacked up as the second one, but defensive shootings exist on a spectrum. Even something that starts as a good shoot can become criminal if you don't stop shooting once the suspect is no longer a threat. If you don't think your modified trigger is potentially in play if you are charged with something because your first three shots were good but the forth was excessive (in the mind of the prosecutor) than yes, they are going to use anything they can to show that last shot was willful, negligent, malicious, whatever narrative they have assigned you. You may know it was just a matter of reaction speed, you may have expert witnesses to attest to that, but you'll still have to answer that narrative.
For just another fact, the rules of evidence generally permit evidence of prior acts (such as modifying a gun's fire control system) to be introduced as evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, or preparation (see for example the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 404(b)(2)). Whether such evidence will be useful in a particular case will depend on all the circumstances; but if I'm prosecuting you I know I have the option or introducing evidence that you modified the trigger on your gun if I think it can help my narrative and help convict you.

And part of the art of advocacy is understanding how juror look at evidence and what sorts of things can affect their perceptions. We learn a lot of this from post verdict interviews of jurors. So we know, for example, that in the Harold Fish case (mentioned earlier) some jurors were very troubled by Fish's use of JHP ammunition; and that helped convict him.

Enjoy your ignorance.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by fiddletown; 09-23-2017 at 11:26 AM.. Reason: Correct typo
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-23-2017, 11:09 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,289
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
I'd guess that there have been hundreds, more than likely THOUSANDS of cases where facts of this nature played a part. Certainly ONE of them would have made it to case law. But again, they give us nothing but opinions.
What makes you think that anyone would even appeal the issue? The fact that it has not been appealed in so many cases strongly suggests that there is nothing to appeal, does it not.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-23-2017, 1:24 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
The opinions of the lawyers are supported by facts.
Not in this discussion they aren't. AGAIN, NOT ONE CASE THAT'S ON POINT HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY ALL OF THESE SELF–APPOINTED, SO–CALLED, EXPERTS ON THIS TOPIC. Instead they've whined that the process that they're a part of makes it 'too hard' to find such material.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
They are supported by the collective and accumulated knowledge and understanding of such things as the legal process, the art of advocacy, and varieties of related legal realities.
Those aren't "facts." Interesting that you don't know the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
If you need a nice, exactly on-point, written opinion of an appellate court, you won't get it; and the educated, knowledgeable participants have explained why.
Translation: I can't give you any cases on point because there aren't any. And so the question asked by the OP has been answered. As he said in that post, "Lots of rumors ... lots of theories." but NOT EVEN ONE DOSE OF REALITY can they show.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What actually speaks volumes is that all the lawyers we've seen addressing this subject, including those with considerable experience in criminal defense litigation and self defense litigation, are unanimous.
AGAIN, all we get is opinion and the logical fallacy, 'I'm a lawyer and I know the answer.' Fact is, for every lawyer who makes such a claim, there's another one who will happily argue the opposite point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
It's those ignorant and uneducated in the subject who resist because they are getting exactly the type of evidence in the exact form they want.
This is the kind of argument that liberals field when pressed for explanations. You disagree with me so you're "ignorant and uneducated." Yet they offer NOTHING to support their opinion except the opinions of others. No one should be convinced by this kind of argument. If anyone is, you probably should raise your standards. Either there are cases that support a point, or there are not. They've been asked REPEATEDLY to provide those cases and they have not. Instead, we're treated to sniveling about how hard it is to do the research. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that there are no such cases. They want us to accept consensus as proof, rather than facts. Sorry, not gonna play here. Especially since mods that increase safety, reliability, sights, and trigger work, improves the ability to make hits, both on the range and in self–defense situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
So, for example, as one lawyer put it here (emphasis added):As another lawyer put it here:And as a knowledgeable LEO put it here:
ROFLMFAO. ElSquid already posted links to these statements! Now Fiddleback is so desperate that he's repeating statements supplied by another member and pretending that it's a new argument. Imagine how dead this horse would be if someone else starts doing the same thing! Or is it that he's ignorant of the fact that ALL of these statements have already been made?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
For just another fact, the rules of evidence generally permit evidence of prior acts (such as modifying a gun's fire control system) to be introduced as evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, or preparation (see for example the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 404(b)(2)).
Well then it should be a simple matter for you to find a case where that's been done and show it to us. I EAGERLY await you doing so! Please show it to us ASAP!

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Whether such evidence will be useful in a particular case will depend on all the circumstances; but if I'm prosecuting you I know I have the option or introducing evidence that you modified the trigger on your gun if I think it can help my narrative and help convict you.
So there should be THOUSANDS of cases where prosecutors have done this right? Show us some please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
And part of the art of advocacy is understanding how juror look at evidence and what sorts of things can affect their perceptions. We learn a lot of this from post verdict interviews of jurors. So we know, for example, that in the Harold Fish case (mentioned earlier) some jurors were very troubled by Fishes use of JHP ammunition; and that help convict him.
Several issues here. First is the fact that this conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial. The DA's office then DISMISSED the case. The way you wrote it, allows the readers to think that his conviction stood and that his choice of ammunition was important to the case. IN FACT, it was of little importance, I found no mention of it in any of the searches I conducted. The case was reversed because of egregious errors made by the trial judge. THAT is what allowed the jury to convict, NOT that Mr. Fish used JHP ammunition. Nice job of trying to mislead the readers there fiddletown. The case is discussed on The National Registry of Exonerations. they don't even mention the kind of ammunition that Mr. Fish used. There is also no mention of the ammunition in the appeal record. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-...s/1176069.html The case is also discussed on the Buckeye Firearms Association site. No mention of the ammunition there either. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2790117/posts So while you seem to think that this was vital to the case, no one else seems to share your opinion.

Second, we again find you begging the question. You seem to have great difficulty remembering that this thread is about modifications made to firearms, in particular their triggers, and NOT about ammunition, no matter how many times you've been reminded.

In any case it sounds like a very poor job was done by the defense. Their expert witness should have made sure that the jury understood some very basic facts. Virtually every LEA in the US uses JHP ammunition because it's the best way, if one is using a handgun, to stop a lethal threat. That would have allayed any issues they had with his use of JHP ammunition. This is really pretty basic stuff. Wondering, were you involved with this case? Otherwise how would you know that "some jurors were very troubled ..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Enjoy your ignorance.
ROFL. We've been here a couple of times before. You really like to pretend that you're smarter than others don't you? As we've seen, you're not. But this is exactly the kind of cheap shot I'd expect from someone who's being repeatedly publicly embarrassed for his complete inability to support his argument with facts, or to answer my simple, direct questions.
__________________
Why would anyone trust the opinion of a person that can't or won't answer simple, direct, questions without evasion or ignoring them completely?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-23-2017, 1:24 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
What makes you think that anyone would even appeal the issue?
"[ I ]ssues" are not appealed, cases are. On appeal the reasons they think the court was in error are detailed. Usually there are many of them. You can read about one such appeal in a case that fiddletown mentioned, the Harold Fish case. BY CLICKING HERE. Here's the first paragraph of the transcript of that appeal.

Quote:
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
The fact that it has not been appealed in so many cases strongly suggests that there is nothing to appeal, does it not.
No, it does not. We're talking about murder or manslaughter convictions and the like here. All death penalty cases are appealed automatically. The other cases are appealed much, if not most, of the time. So if modifications to guns were important to these cases, there'd be evidence of it in those appeals.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 09-23-2017, 3:09 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,289
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Someone should read about "Issues on Appeal" if they want to play word games. Even though a right to an automatic appeal exists, competent appeals counsel isn't going to make a losing argument. I was looking at what was written about the Fish case and the impact of the 10 MM on some jurors. Someone, and I don't mean Fiddletown, should know better than to think that everything learned if post verdict interviews with jurors makes it into the records on appeal. Here is a hint, those interviews are voluntary and are not part of the trial court's proceedings.

Last edited by Chewy65; 09-23-2017 at 3:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-23-2017, 4:32 PM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 9,395
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
I'd guess that there have been hundreds, more than likely THOUSANDS of cases where facts of this nature played a part. Certainly ONE of them would have made it to case law. But again, they give us nothing but opinions.
No, they gave explanations of how the system works.

If a firearm mod negatively influences an investigator, this won't be explicitly captured in case law.

If a firearm mod negatively influences a prosecutor, this won't be explicitly captured in case law.

If a firearm mod negatively influences a jury, this won't be explicitly captured in case law.

Folks want citable appellate or better decisions that they can point to, but this seems unlikely as well. The firearm(s) used in an event will be an issue of fact, as will any mods that are made to them. The other thread made clear that appellate issues generally revolve around the application of law. So what kind of "application of the law" issues might a firearm be central in?

One might be admissability as evidence. Can anyone articulate how the presence or absence of a trigger job might influence whether a firearm is admissable? I can't.

Perhaps one argues that the prosecution unfairly biased the jury in some manner by harping on the trigger mods, but that really carries little water as prosecutors have very wide latitude in making their cases. It's the job of the defense lawyer to rebut the prosecution.

So, again, what kind of questions would one expect the appellate or above to answer where the trigger modification is central to the application of the law?

And just to reinforce the point: asking for an appellate decision is asking the question "has a trigger mod ever mattered to an appellate court" which is a different question from "does a trigger mod potentially expose one to more jeopardy in a criminal context?" ( Is anyone willing to argue that trigger mods don't potentially expose you to more civil liability? )

Going back to the prosecutor, one aspect is "will the mod negatively bias the prosecutor?" Another aspect is "will the mod serve as item that will forward the narrative that the prosecutor wants to build?" We've seen cases where prosecutors aggressively ( very aggressively! ) go after folks in order to advance an agenda or make a point. No trigger mods mean one less item that can be used to build a negative narrative.



TL,DR conclusion:


"any Trigger Work automatically an issue in a shoot?"

No, not automatically.

"will trigger work be a/the deciding factor in a criminal investigation/trial?"

Seems unlikely, unless the issue is negligence in an accidental shooting.

Can trigger mods influence investigators, prosecutors, juries? Sure. ( Aside: You can see defendants showing up in court clean shaven, neat haircuts, suits, possibly wearing glasses, etc. Anyone have any appellate decisions that hinged on how the accused presented themselves in court? Anyone here think that it doesn't matter? )

Some lawyers recommend strongly against trigger mods because they really only can hurt - not help - in criminal and civil contexts. That's a reasonable stance to take, since the stakes are quite high and you want to maximize the chances of success.

Some folks may not care as much, and are willing to take a chance.

Personally, I have a 686 that I'm going to send off to get converted to DAO. Hammer spur will be removed, single action disabled, and DA work will be done to smooth out - but not lighten - the trigger. I'm comfortable with that, and I think that should be defensible in court, if need be.

YMMV. IANAL.

-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-23-2017, 4:48 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
....First is the fact that this conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial. The DA's office then DISMISSED the case. The way you wrote it, allows the readers to think that his conviction stood and that his choice of ammunition was important to the case. IN FACT, it was of little importance, I found no mention of it in any of the searches I conducted. The case was reversed because of egregious errors made by the trial judge. THAT is what allowed the jury to convict, NOT that Mr. Fish used JHP ammunition. Nice job of trying to mislead the readers there fiddletown. The case is discussed on The National Registry of Exonerations. they don't even mention the kind of ammunition that Mr. Fish used. There is also no mention of the ammunition in the appeal record. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-...s/1176069.html The case is also discussed on the Buckeye Firearms Association site. No mention of the ammunition there either. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2790117/posts So while you seem to think that this was vital to the case, no one else seems to share your opinion.

Second, we again find you begging the question. You seem to have great difficulty remembering that this thread is about modifications made to firearms, in particular their triggers, and NOT about ammunition, no matter how many times you've been reminded....
Let's look at the second bit of your nonsense first. You want to characterize this as just about modification to firearms. But what the lawyers are concerned about is jury perception -- how a modification to a firearm could affect the way the defense has to tell its story and how various factors like a modification of a firearm used, or the ammunition used, or decorations on the weapon could influence the ways in which a jury sees the evidence and forms its conclusions.

Packaging counts.

Looking at the packaging question, a gun savvy research psychologist, Glenn E. Meyer, did a study of how the type of weapon used in a self defense incident could affect the perceptions of member of a jury looking at a justification defense. His findings were published in this article in the journal, The Jury Expert. Dr. Meyer is a moderator at TFL and an active IDPA competitor.

The Fish case also raises the packaging question. In an interview, one of the Fish juror said:
Quote:
...Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill....
And the prosecution had "primed the pump":
Quote:
...But Prosecutor Michael Lessler argued this case was not about character—it’s about behavior.
He urged the jury to follow the law in their deliberations.

Michael Lessler, prosecutor: Mr. Fish shot him three time in the chest with this high powered gun, hollow point bullets and caused his death. That’s murder....
And as Massad Ayoob pointed out:
Quote:
...the prosecutor made a huge deal of Fish using a 10mm Kimber pistol and Federal hollow point ammunition to protect himself, convincing at least some on the jury that the large caliber gun and the somehow extra-deadly bullets were indications of malice....
Yes, Fish won his appeal, but his victory in the appellate court had nothing to do with the JHP/10mm evidence. The court of appeal tossed the verdict on other grounds, principally errors in the trial court's handling of evidence related to Kuenzli's prior acts. And the fact that there's no mention of the ammunition issue in the appeal merely illustrates that some things which can and will influence a jury won't show up in the official reports.

Fish won his appeal and the charges were dismissed. He had spent three years in prison and died not long after his release.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-23-2017, 5:46 PM
Justinoff's Avatar
Justinoff Justinoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
It is a constant claim, and none have been able to cite a SINGLE case where a gun modification was the difference between a "good shoot" and a "bad shoot" in criminal or civil trial.

The counter for "The hair trigger caused you to accidentally shoot" is "No sir, I INTENDED to shoot"

The closest was a recent case in AZ where a LEO had a "You're F'd" etched dust cover on his AR... the medial made a big deal out of it, but there were 99 other issues that caused that to be ruled a bad shoot... the dust cover made no difference.


LEO will have a different standard, as the department will not likely allow any modifications not performed by the department armorer on a duty weapon. They may apply the same standard to the officer's personal carry gun when off duty. Some also apply that standard to CCW.

As a security guard, it's going to be up to your employer. If he says "bone stock", then "bone stock" it is.


Uhhh ok.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.thetr...-in-court/amp/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-23-2017, 5:57 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
In that case Brailsford got lucky. The trial judge ruled to exclude that from evidence.

Evidence of a prior act, such as decorating one's gun or body in a particular way, can not be admitted to show that the person actually did something in accordance with a character trait reflected by such act. But such prior act may be admissible as evidence of motive, preparation, intent or for certain other purposes.

A trial judge ruling on a question of the admissibility of this sort of evidence must consider (1) the purpose(s) for which the evidence is offered; and (2) whether the probative value of the evidence is greater than its prejudicial effect. Such rulings will be unique to the particular case or circumstances.

So in this case, this judge apparently weighed the facts and the competing interests and ruled one way. That doesn't mean that a different judge (or even this judge) would reach the same conclusion in a different case. Trial court ruling such as this are considered "law of the case" and as such applies only in this case and not in any others.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-23-2017, 6:02 PM
Justinoff's Avatar
Justinoff Justinoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
In that case Brailsford got lucky. The trial judge ruled to exclude that from evidence.



Evidence of a prior act, such as decorating one's gun or body in a particular way, can not be admitted to show that the person actually did something in accordance with a character trait reflected by such act. But such prior act may be admissible as evidence of motive, preparation, intent or for certain other purposes.



A trial judge ruling on a question of the admissibility of this sort of evidence must consider (1) the purpose(s) for which the evidence is offered; and (2) whether the probative value of the evidence is greater than its prejudicial effect. Such rulings will be unique to the particular case or circumstances.



So in this case, this judge apparently weighed the facts and the competing interests and ruled one way. That doesn't mean that a different judge (or even this judge) would reach the same conclusion in a different case. Trial court ruling such as this are considered "law of the case" and as such applies only in this case and not in any others.


Right. But the fact that this was even an issue speaks volumes to modifying any duty weapon. I would leave my work Firearm the same as it’s issued aside from optics.

Personal guns you bet your *** I’ve done trigger jobs and installed drop in triggers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-23-2017, 10:57 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Someone should read about "Issues on Appeal" if they want to play word games.
Hardly "play[ing] word games." You used the phrase incorrectly. Issues are discussed on appeal but they are not appealed, as you wrote. It's akin to talking about the cylinder being loaded on a Glock, essentially a non sequitur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Even though a right to an automatic appeal exists, competent appeals counsel isn't going to make a losing argument.
If that "competent appeals counsel" loses the appeal, it would be said that he "ma[d]e a losing argument."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
I was looking at what was written about the Fish case and the impact of the 10 MM on some jurors. Someone, and I don't mean Fiddletown, should know better than to think that everything learned if post verdict interviews with jurors makes it into the records on appeal. Here is a hint, those interviews are voluntary and are not part of the trial court's proceedings.
Yes, I know. That's why I asked fiddletown if he was involved directly on the Fish case. Of course, because answering questions is beneath him, he didn't respond. Unless one is directly involved or speaks to someone who was, such information rarely makes it out of the hands of folks who are. In this instance we have some jurors being interviewed by the press and that's one way that the information became public. That's relatively rare. Having served as a consultant on many jury trials, I've been part of those post trial interviews many times . Sometimes the jury members don't want to talk to anyone and sometimes they want to have lunch.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-23-2017, 10:58 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Earlier I wrote,
Quote:
I'd guess that there have been hundreds, more than likely THOUSANDS of cases where facts of this nature played a part. Certainly ONE of them would have made it to case law. But again, they give us nothing but opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
No, they gave explanations of how the system works.
No, they told us that no one should ever do any modifications to any gun, and then not to use JHP ammunition because it might influence a jury, if used for self–defense. Better not go out of the house at all, ever. And if one does, you better not bring a gun that you may use in self–defense. ESPECIALLY if you've done any modifications to it. Better close this forum down because there are THOUSANDS of discussions about modifying guns to make them more shootable, more comfortable, more accurate, more reliable, in short, better killing machines. [/sarcasm].

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
If a firearm mod negatively influences an investigator, this won't be explicitly captured in case law.
It might be, and probably would be if it was an issue during an appeal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
If a firearm mod negatively influences a prosecutor, this won't be explicitly captured in case law.

If a firearm mod negatively influences a jury, this won't be explicitly captured in case law.
Ditto.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
Folks want citable appellate or better decisions that they can point to, but this seems unlikely as well. The firearm(s) used in an event will be an issue of fact, as will any mods that are made to them. The other thread made clear that appellate issues generally revolve around the application of law. So what kind of "application of the law" issues might a firearm be central in?

One might be admissability as evidence. Can anyone articulate how the presence or absence of a trigger job might influence whether a firearm is admissable? I can't.
A firearm is pretty much going to be admissible, whether it's been modified or not. I can't think of a situation where it would not be, unless there was some problem with its seizure or there was something about it that was too prejudicial. The latter occurred with the Arizona LEO who had a profane saying etched on his rifle's dust cover.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
Perhaps one argues that the prosecution unfairly biased the jury in some manner by harping on the trigger mods, but that really carries little water as prosecutors have very wide latitude in making their cases. It's the job of the defense lawyer to rebut the prosecution.
No matter what the prosecution does it's the job of the defense to counter it. That means hiring competent expert witnesses to educate the jury as to what a modified trigger means to the incident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
So, again, what kind of questions would one expect the appellate or above to answer where the trigger modification is central to the application of the law?
Sorry, I don't understand your question. Can you explain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
And just to reinforce the point: asking for an appellate decision is asking the question "has a trigger mod ever mattered to an appellate court" which is a different question from "does a trigger mod potentially expose one to more jeopardy in a criminal context?" ( Is anyone willing to argue that trigger mods don't potentially expose you to more civil liability? )

Going back to the prosecutor, one aspect is "will the mod negatively bias the prosecutor?" Another aspect is "will the mod serve as item that will forward the narrative that the prosecutor wants to build?" We've seen cases where prosecutors aggressively ( very aggressively! ) go after folks in order to advance an agenda or make a point. No trigger mods mean one less item that can be used to build a negative narrative.
Or a competent expert witness could turn it to the defendant's advantage because it shows that he wants to keep bystanders as safe as possible. 'He so cared about his responsibility to the public, that he spent his own money to add to the chances that he would not hit any of them with poorly fired shots. Having a modified trigger had the effect of making his gun more accurate.' I've seen testimony of this nature have the jurors nodding in agreement and acceptance. So assuming that it's automatically a "negative narrative" is a mistake.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
Some lawyers recommend strongly against trigger mods because they really only can hurt - not help - in criminal and civil contexts. That's a reasonable stance to take, since the stakes are quite high and you want to maximize the chances of success.
I don't think that the "stance ... [is necessarily] reasonable." As I've pointed out, sometimes it leaves the door open for an expert witness to make quite a few points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
Some folks may not care as much, and are willing to take a chance.
Life means risk. I prefer to ensure the safety of the public and myself so that my shots are fired as accurately as possible. Having been in LE for a 30 year career, having been involved in a couple of shootings, having spent time on a team that investigated LE shootings and having served as an expert witness on many cases where this came up (and the defense was successful on every one of them) I have my own opinions on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
Personally, I have a 686 that I'm going to send off to get converted to DAO. Hammer spur will be removed, single action disabled, and DA work will be done to smooth out - but not lighten - the trigger. I'm comfortable with that, and I think that should be defensible in court, if need be.
It could be argued that this made it a more efficient killing machine and that you were hoping that you'd get the chance to kill someone. Of course this argument will be made just by you having the gun, mod'd or not. And THAT'S MY POINT.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-23-2017, 10:59 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Let's look at the second bit of your nonsense first. You want to characterize this as just about modification to firearms.
I'm not "characterize[ing] this as just about modification to firearms," that's the question asked by the OP. He gets to ask whatever question and to phrase it anyways that he likes. If you want to have some other discussion, you might think about opening your own thread so you can direct it any way that you like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
But what the lawyers are concerned about is jury perception -- how a modification to a firearm could affect the way the defense has to tell its story and how various factors like a modification of a firearm used, or the ammunition used, or decorations on the weapon could influence the ways in which a jury sees the evidence and forms its conclusions.
No, that's how you want the discussion to go. The OP didn't ask about any of those things. He was quite specific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Packaging counts.

Looking at the packaging question, a gun savvy research psychologist, Glenn E. Meyer, did a study of how the type of weapon used in a self defense incident could affect the perceptions of member of a jury looking at a justification defense. His findings were published in this article in the journal, The Jury Expert. Dr. Meyer is a moderator at TFL and an active IDPA competitor.
A very good article. I've read it several times before. While there's no specific recommendations that come out of it, the argument can be made that one should never leave the house with ANY kind of firearm. But if you do, a revolver is a better choice than a Glock and a Mini–14 is a better choice than an AR–15, from the standpoint of how you may be judged by a jury. But the reality is that choices have been made based on personal choices and that's what armed people will do. As I've said, the burden is on the expert witness to educate the jurors as to why the choices were made, that they were reasonable and that they were in the interests of the safety of the public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
The Fish case also raises the packaging question. In an interview, one of the Fish juror said:And the prosecution had "primed the pump":
Another good article. This one tells me several things. One was that the defense dismissed the prosecutions allegations of lying about Mr. Fish's statements as "nitpicking." That's not near good enough. Jurors need to be educated as to how memory works in times of stress. They need to be reminded that not having a perfect memory is typical, not an indication of being dishonest. The fact that the jurors had an issue with the HP ammunition tells me that the defense did not do a good job with its expert witness, in educating the jury. I'd bet that every LEO who testified had HP ammunition in his gun, and they are interested, not in killing people, but in stopping threats as quickly as possible. Earlier you described the area as "gun friendly Arizona," but you, and the defense, overlooked the fact that no matter how "gun friendly" an area may be, there will be individuals who know nothing about guns and have swallowed the BS that the liberals put out about them. An expert witness has to aim for the lowest common denominator and assume that ALL of the jurors are hostile. He has to make sure that they all understand the truth about guns, ammunition, and self defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
And as Massad Ayoob pointed out

The gunnies on here will remember that the prosecutor made a huge deal of Fish using a 10mm Kimber pistol and Federal hollow point ammunition to protect himself, convincing at least some on the jury that the large caliber gun and the somehow extra-deadly bullets were indications of malice. The appellate court didn’t argue with that, apparently feeling that such arguments are within an adversary’s purview. Lesson there: be able to articulate why you, like most cops, choose a powerful handgun and effective ammunition to defend yourselves and your loved ones.
He apparently agrees with me that it's the job of the defense to allay the fears and misconceptions that the jurors have and to educate them as to the realities of firearms, ammunition, and self–defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Fish won his appeal and the charges were dismissed. He had spent three years in prison and died not long after his release.
A tragedy on many levels.
__________________
Why would anyone trust the opinion of a person that can't or won't answer simple, direct, questions without evasion or ignoring them completely?

Last edited by bigger hammer; 09-23-2017 at 11:00 PM.. Reason: fix HTML
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-23-2017, 11:02 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
Right. But the fact that this was even an issue speaks volumes to modifying any duty weapon. I would leave my work Firearm the same as it’s issued aside from optics.
What if your "duty weapon" would not function reliably? Would you let a department armorer modify it until it did? What if there was no such armorer in the employ of your agency but they gave you permission to take it to a local gunsmith? If you were competent would you modify it yourself? What if the repair parts were "drop in?" Would you do the work yourself?

Since you think it's OK to add "optics," do you realize that a prosecutor will say that you put it on because you wanted to kill someone? WATCH OUT if it's a RDS (red dot sight) or it has a reticle that lights up red, as most lit reticules do, because red is 'the color of blood' and that shows your killer mentality. Again, [/sarcasm].

Folks, these details make no difference. A weak or anti–gun prosecutor will use anything, from the color of the dot on your optic, to the color of your tie, to show that you're nothing but a cold blooded killer who could not wait to pull the trigger on anyone who provided the slightest provocation. Better to make changes to your gun that make it fit you better, that make it more efficient, and more accurate and then to have an expert testify on your behalf that those changes improved the safety of innocent bystanders because you were more accurate and less likely to hit one of them. You use HP ammunition because it's less likely to penetrate the threat and hurt one of them and because it ends the threat more quickly so that none of them are in danger from that threat. Every coin has two sides, one is more reasonable than the other, and juries generally want to believe the good guys. Even if you're perceived as 'the bad guy' by them a good expert can often bring them around to your side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
Personal guns you bet your *** I’ve done trigger jobs and installed drop in triggers.
How do you justify this? What if one of those modified guns was in your hand at the moment that you had to defend yourself with deadly force? Would you put it down, rather than use it, because the modifications might be used against you in court?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-23-2017, 11:51 PM
Justinoff's Avatar
Justinoff Justinoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
What if your "duty weapon" would not function reliably? Would you let a department armorer modify it until it did? What if there was no such armorer in the employ of your agency but they gave you permission to take it to a local gunsmith? If you were competent would you modify it yourself? What if the repair parts were "drop in?" Would you do the work yourself?

Since you think it's OK to add "optics," do you realize that a prosecutor will say that you put it on because you wanted to kill someone? WATCH OUT if it's a RDS (red dot sight) or it has a reticle that lights up red, as most lit reticules do, because red is 'the color of blood' and that shows your killer mentality. Again, [/sarcasm].

Folks, these details make no difference. A weak or anti–gun prosecutor will use anything, from the color of the dot on your optic, to the color of your tie, to show that you're nothing but a cold blooded killer who could not wait to pull the trigger on anyone who provided the slightest provocation. Better to make changes to your gun that make it fit you better, that make it more efficient, and more accurate and then to have an expert testify on your behalf that those changes improved the safety of innocent bystanders because you were more accurate and less likely to hit one of them. You use HP ammunition because it's less likely to penetrate the threat and hurt one of them and because it ends the threat more quickly so that none of them are in danger from that threat. Every coin has two sides, one is more reasonable than the other, and juries generally want to believe the good guys. Even if you're perceived as 'the bad guy' by them a good expert can often bring them around to your side.



How do you justify this? What if one of those modified guns was in your hand at the moment that you had to defend yourself with deadly force? Would you put it down, rather than use it, because the modifications might be used against you in court?


So you think a certified gun smith/Dept Armorer and joe bob with a file and YouTube acct are going to be looked at the same?

I’m pretty sure an insurance underwriter would disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-24-2017, 12:52 AM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 9,395
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
No, they told us that no one should ever do any modifications to any gun,...
Some of the folks that I linked to that wrote about the appellate issues actually gave guidelines on trigger mods ( that I also gave links for, later in my post ), so their view was the more nuanced one. That said, I had seven? eight? nine? links in that post, so I can't blame you for not following them all.



Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
Sorry, I don't understand your question. Can you explain?
.
Sure. We agree that the firearm is an issue of fact. If the shooter used a Glock 19 with an aftermarket trigger, he used a Glock 19 with an aftermarket trigger. There is little contention here.

The folks in the other thread made the point that appellate courts deal with the (mis)application of law.

I'm about to risk a tautology....

If you want an appellate ruling on modified triggers, then apparently you need an issue of law where the modification of the trigger is central to resolving the application of the law.

We've already agreed that the weapon/mods are almost certainly going to be valid evidence, and that the prosecution is free to spin the modification of the trigger according to whatever narrative that he wants ( just as the defense is free to rebut ), so what else is there where the trigger mod could possibly be an important part of an appealable issue?

It's not a rhetorical question. I'm curious to see if there are some possible issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
I don't think that the "stance ... [is necessarily] reasonable." As I've pointed out, sometimes it leaves the door open for an expert witness to make quite a few points.

Life means risk. I prefer to ensure the safety of the public and myself so that my shots are fired as accurately as possible. Having been in LE for a 30 year career, having been involved in a couple of shootings, having spent time on a team that investigated LE shootings and having served as an expert witness on many cases where this came up (and the defense was successful on every one of them) I have my own opinions on this.
And you aren't being unreasonable. Like you write, you have a different opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
It could be argued that this made it a more efficient killing machine and that you were hoping that you'd get the chance to kill someone. Of course this argument will be made just by you having the gun, mod'd or not. And THAT'S MY POINT.
And the argument proposed by the other side ( those that feel trigger mods should be avoided, dead stop ) is that if you have "n" issues that may come up during an investigation/trial and color the issue, trigger mods make it n+1. For them, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. It's hard to blame them for their opinion; they want to minimize moving parts in order to maximize the probability of success in the court.

My view - which is not based by any practical experience, and can be casually dismissed - is the intermediate one; it appears that a modified trigger may be an issue depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. "It depends."

So while I'm comfortable with having a recognized professional convert my 686 to DAO, I'm not going to bother trying some home gunsmithing to get a 2lb trigger pull on my defensive 1911.

And now, in closing, I shrug.



-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-24-2017, 8:56 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 11,046
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Can we move this to the CA legal forum? It's taken on a life of lawyers.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-24-2017, 10:30 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
So you think a certified gun smith/Dept Armorer and joe bob with a file and YouTube acct are going to be looked at the same?

I’m pretty sure an insurance underwriter would disagree.
Here's what I wrote. Still waiting for you to answer those simple, direct questions.

Quote:
What if your "duty weapon" would not function reliably? Would you let a department armorer modify it until it did? What if there was no such armorer in the employ of your agency but they gave you permission to take it to a local gunsmith? If you were competent would you modify it yourself? What if the repair parts were "drop in?" Would you do the work yourself?
Please show us where in that paragraph, or anywhere else, I mentioned "joe bob with a file and a YouTube acct?" Why would you bring this up, out of the clear blue?
__________________
Why would anyone trust the opinion of a person that can't or won't answer simple, direct, questions without evasion or ignoring them completely?
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-24-2017, 10:30 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
Some of the folks that I linked to that wrote about the appellate issues actually gave guidelines on trigger mods ( that I also gave links for, later in my post ), so their view was the more nuanced one. That said, I had seven? eight? nine? links in that post, so I can't blame you for not following them all.
Oh I looked at them all. Some I'd seen before. But I didn't read all of them all the way through. I did read the guidelines on trigger mods in one of them. It's fascinating that a 4 lb trigger is perfectly OK but anything under that is not. Seems to me, if you're going to go along with this argument, that anything less than the maximum weight trigger pull that any LEA in the country requires (I think that's about 12 lbs) would be a sign that the shooter is a 'crazed maniac who hopes, every day of his life, for a confrontation, just so that he can kill!'

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
Sure. We agree that the firearm is an issue of fact. If the shooter used a Glock 19 with an aftermarket trigger, he used a Glock 19 with an aftermarket trigger. There is little contention here.

The folks in the other thread made the point that appellate courts deal with the (mis)application of law.

I'm about to risk a tautology....

If you want an appellate ruling on modified triggers, then apparently you need an issue of law where the modification of the trigger is central to resolving the application of the law.
I'm pretty sure that I've not asked for "an appellate ruling on modified triggers." I have asked those who espouse the position that LE guns and guns used for self defense, not be modified, because that modification will be used against the shooter at trial, to show us some cases where that's happened. Not one of them who make this claim has been able to do so. All they have given in support of their opinions, is some opinions from others. Not what has been asked for and certainly not convincing. They beg the question continually, but never provide any real proof that it's happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
We've already agreed that the weapon/mods are almost certainly going to be valid evidence, and that the prosecution is free to spin the modification of the trigger according to whatever narrative that he wants ( just as the defense is free to rebut ), so what else is there where the trigger mod could possibly be an important part of an appealable issue?
I'm not the one to answer this question. That's the burden of those who have claimed that the fact will be used in court to show a 'depraved heart.' FACT IS, the prosecution is going to make that claim anyway, even with a completely stock (meaning unmodified) gun, so it makes no difference. It's going to be up to the expert to show that the modifications were done to make it safer for all concerned, a fairly easy task.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
It's not a rhetorical question. I'm curious to see if there are some possible issues.
Give me a hypothetical from the side who is against mods, and perhaps I can respond. It's pretty funny that they will allow some modifications, but not others. Going by their standard ANY MODIFICATION will be attacked, including the ones that some of them think are OK, sights and smoothing triggers. Heck I can see an unscrupulous prosecutor attacking someone for THE FINISH of the gun. They all have one, but any of them can be attacked. If it's blued, it's so that no one will see that he's armed until it's too late. If it's hard chromed, the shooter thinks it's a piece of jewelry so he can show it off to everyone. If it's FDE, it's to blend in with the brush so he can easily do an ambush. If it's pink, it's so everyone will think it's a toy gun until it's too late. ANYTHING can be twisted and many lawyers make a living out of doing it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
And the argument proposed by the other side ( those that feel trigger mods should be avoided, dead stop ) is that if you have "n" issues that may come up during an investigation/trial and color the issue, trigger mods make it n+1. For them, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. It's hard to blame them for their opinion; they want to minimize moving parts in order to maximize the probability of success in the court.
I get that, but I've found it fairly easy to make those modifications an advantage for the defense. In fact, the more mods, the easier it was. As long as they're reasonable, of course. One case I was on, the shooter used a custom built 1911 built by a well known, highly respected gunsmith. It had an aftermarket target sight with tritium inserts, a bobbed hammer, a beavertail safety, extended slide and magazine releases and a long trigger. The front strap was checkered 20 LPI. The trigger guard was squared and checkered. It had a NM barrel, a beveled mag well, and a reliability package. Almost forgot, ambi safeties, titanium firing pin and an extra strength firing pin spring. It was equipped with custom stocks. That's n+17 (or thereabouts). I went through each modification and showed that it either increased reliability, safety, or efficiency and made the gun safer for the public, the shooter, and the person who had been shot. Speaking with a couple of jurors after the case, they told me that after the prosecution talked about the gun, they thought of the shooter as "some kind of kill–crazy devil" (their phrase), but after they heard from me, they realized just how much of a concerned, good citizen he really was. They were amazed at the amount of money he'd spent on the mods to ensure that the gun was as accurate, and as efficient as he could make it. The prosecutor confided to the defense team, that he wished he'd never brought it up, and probably never would again. It certainly wasn't the key to the case, but what he thought was a convincing argument, turned out to be the opposite for him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
My view - which is not based by any practical experience, and can be casually dismissed - is the intermediate one; it appears that a modified trigger may be an issue depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. "It depends."

So while I'm comfortable with having a recognized professional convert my 686 to DAO, I'm not going to bother trying some home gunsmithing to get a 2lb trigger pull on my defensive 1911.
I'm not sure why folks are bringing up things like your "home gunsmithing" or Justinoff's "joe bob with a file ..." I've said nothing about either one and I don't think anyone else has either. I'm talking about reasonable modifications done by trained and competent professionals or, drop–in parts, that don't require any fitting or special expertise to install, such as a Glock trigger or barrel.
__________________
Why would anyone trust the opinion of a person that can't or won't answer simple, direct, questions without evasion or ignoring them completely?
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-24-2017, 10:59 AM
Justinoff's Avatar
Justinoff Justinoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
Here's what I wrote. Still waiting for you to answer those simple, direct questions.







Please show us where in that paragraph, or anywhere else, I mentioned "joe bob with a file and a YouTube acct?" Why would you bring this up, out of the clear blue?


Oh I answered it. You just didn’t comprehend it. Hint, you’re joe bob.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-24-2017, 12:34 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
Oh I answered it. You just didn’t comprehend it.
The fact that you wrote, "... I answered it" (emphasis on the singular) shows that you have not been paying attention. Prior to this post, I've asked you a total of 11 questions, five of them asked a second time (the five repeats are not counted in the 11), only two of which you answered.

They were in posts #70 and #74. There are 2 new ones in this post. I think there's a reason that people won't answer my simple, direct questions. They know their answers will put the lie to statements they've made, and will punch holes in their arguments. I make it a point to answer every question that's asked of me, with a few reasonable exceptions that I'll be happy to list if anyone asks. But OFTEN people don't do the same for my questions. You have become one of them. But it's an easy thing to change. I've told you where they are, just go answer them. Here's a "hint" for you. Failing to answer those questions hurts your credibility and puts your opinions in doubt. Of course, so does answering them, so I understand the evasion and avoidance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
Hint, you’re joe bob.
What have I written that gave you the idea that I think that I'm a self–trained semi–competent (if that) gunsmith? Or do you have some other definition for what that means?

Oops, that makes 13 questions I've asked you.
__________________
Why would anyone trust the opinion of a person that can't or won't answer simple, direct, questions without evasion or ignoring them completely?
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-24-2017, 12:59 PM
Justinoff's Avatar
Justinoff Justinoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
The fact that you wrote, "... I answered it" (emphasis on the singular) shows that you have not been paying attention. Prior to this post, I've asked you a total of 11 questions, five of them asked a second time (the five repeats are not counted in the 11), only two of which you answered.



They were in posts #70 and #74. There are 2 new ones in this post. I think there's a reason that people won't answer my simple, direct questions. They know their answers will put the lie to statements they've made, and will punch holes in their arguments. I make it a point to answer every question that's asked of me, with a few reasonable exceptions that I'll be happy to list if anyone asks. But OFTEN people don't do the same for my questions. You have become one of them. But it's an easy thing to change. I've told you where they are, just go answer them. Here's a "hint" for you. Failing to answer those questions hurts your credibility and puts your opinions in doubt. Of course, so does answering them, so I understand the evasion and avoidance.







What have I written that gave you the idea that I think that I'm a self–trained semi–competent (if that) gunsmith? Or do you have some other definition for what that means?



Oops, that makes 13 questions I've asked you.


A) brevity is the soul of whit.

B) are you saying that home modifications don’t void manufacture’s warranties?

The point is pretty simple and you’ve done your best to make it as convoluted as possible. You’re essentially stating a license bonded gunsmith is viewed the same as a guy who watched a YouTube video in a court of law. That’s laughable.

I’m not going to bother answering questions which are distractions from the point at hand.

But you clearly need more expert advice on the issue...
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...tion%E2%80%9D/

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=6896

https://blog.uslawshield.com/legal-r...-trigger-pull/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.thefi...ified-gun/amp/

Pretty simple concept you’re trying to litigate into the ground just do you can be that guy...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-24-2017, 2:56 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 28,870
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
B) are you saying that home modifications don’t void manufacture’s warranties?
Look up the Magnusson-Moss Consumer Protection Act.

Short story, for the manufacture to require that work be performed by a specific entity as a condition of maintaining the warranty, such service must be provided at no cost.

For modifications and aftermarket parts, the manufacturer must prove that the aftermarket parts or 3rd party labor was the cause of or contributed significantly to the failure. Of course, they are not bound to honor warranty on aftermarket parts or parts modified by 3rd parties.

What is "acceptable"?
Are any of you going to argue that I can't replace my recoil spring?
Are any of you going to argue that I can't field strip my gun for cleaning?
Are any of you going to argue that I can't detail strip my gun for cleaning?

What is the difference between a routine detail strip and reassembly, and the installation of a drop-in trigger kit such as an Apex that requires no fitting?

None of the above would fall under "Bubba with a Dremel"

My CCW IA encourages modifications that enhance reliability and accuracy. Duty/Carry level spring and trigger kits, and night sights are encouraged. Competition level spring and trigger kits are discouraged, and if the pull is too light, the gun will be rejected at inspection.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-24-2017, 3:03 PM
Justinoff's Avatar
Justinoff Justinoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
Look up the Magnusson-Moss Consumer Protection Act.

Short story, for the manufacture to require that work be performed by a specific entity as a condition of maintaining the warranty, such service must be provided at no cost.

For modifications and aftermarket parts, the manufacturer must prove that the aftermarket parts or 3rd party labor was the cause of or contributed significantly to the failure. Of course, they are not bound to honor warranty on aftermarket parts or parts modified by 3rd parties.

What is "acceptable"?
Are any of you going to argue that I can't replace my recoil spring?
Are any of you going to argue that I can't field strip my gun for cleaning?
Are any of you going to argue that I can't detail strip my gun for cleaning?

What is the difference between a routine detail strip and reassembly, and the installation of a drop-in trigger kit such as an Apex that requires no fitting?

None of the above would fall under "Bubba with a Dremel"

My CCW IA encourages modifications that enhance reliability and accuracy. Duty/Carry level spring and trigger kits, and night sights are encouraged. Competition level spring and trigger kits are discouraged, and if the pull is too light, the gun will be rejected at inspection.


I agree 100%. Cleaning and disassembly is much different story than changing the trigger geometry and swapping hammer springs by a internet taught home gunsmith.

On a personal rifle you do what you want but on a service/duty Firearm it’s not only a bad idea but against most departments policy and for good reason.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:34 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.