Light/Altered Trigger Pull Liability ...

[GlockN'Roll]

I often see posts about aftermarket trigger groups, home made trigger alterations from springs to sear changes and mag disconnect removals.

These changes are often recommended for carry and home defense guns.

I suspect that this link has been posted before, but Mas Ayoob's take on the liability associated with these changes is worth a look:

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

http://www.glocktalk.com/threads/purchasing-a-modified-gun-for-sd-such-as-a-zev-tech.1595901/

[Cali-Preacher]

I went into a gun store a few weeks ago to talk to them about an after market trigger for my glock that would take my ccw gun down to approx 3lbs. They brought this very same ideology to my attention. I must admit, it made me think about the possible legal ramifications if the need to use my ccw ever arose. Long story short, i didn't get a new trigger and all my ccw's will keep their factory trigger. Def something to think about.

[nedro]

My G17 is down to 2.75 lbs pull from the middle of the trigger.
It most definitely is a concern. I'm not sure I'd want to try to draw that thing in a stressful situation. It really does have a hair trigger as far as pistols go.

[leadstorm]

There's a lot of internet amplification effect going on with this issue (has been for years).

If you shoot someone (justified or not), the gun gets unloaded, tagged and bagged, and goes to the evidence locker. They don't function check it (unless there's question about who's gun it is and they need ballistic data). It doesn't go to the gun dissection room to figure out if you put a Ghost connector in it.

No one cared if Zimmerman modified his KelTec...they cared about what he did with it.

[Res]

No one cared if Zimmerman modified his KelTec...they cared about what he did with it.

They tried to vilify him because he had a "round chambered ready to kill", and used "people killing hollow points"..

With that said. I did install an apex trigger kit on my Shield.
Well, half the kit. Since I can't get the damned rear sight off

[CWM4A1]

Try read up this thread in the link below, it has being discussed. I am in the camp of not agreeing with Ayoob, YMMV.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=15948667#post15948667

[happy.thoughts]

I would not disregard what Mas has said, it is facts and case law.
However, as mush as a light trigger can get you in trouble it can also get you out of trouble.
Being able to shoot faster with more accuracy is a force multiplier, all things aside.

All I'm advocating is that you know the pros and cons and make your own decision.

[GlockN'Roll]

Been on jury duty lately?

There's a lot of internet amplification effect
going on with this issue (has been for years).

If you shoot someone (justified or not), the gun gets unloaded, tagged and bagged, and goes to the evidence locker. They don't function check it (unless there's question about who's gun it is and they need ballistic data). It doesn't go to the gun dissection room to figure out if you put a Ghost connector in it.

No one cared if Zimmerman modified his KelTec...they cared about what he did with it.

"Of course they ‘ll know.

It is routine procedure for every firearm recovered after a shooting to be sent to the crime lab,

where it will be intensively examined by a professional Firearms and Toolmark Examiner who is likely to be currently certified as an armorer with most common handguns.

Trigger pulls are routinely weighed and cross-checked with manufacturer specifications to determine if they are within spec.

All safety devices are checked.

A classic example is Florida v. Luis Alvarez, where the cornerstone of the state’s case against the officer was that he had

(A) cocked the hammer of his Smith & Wesson, which

(B) had two coils removed from the trigger return spring."

“There has never been a conviction resulting from the hair trigger allegation!”

MISCONCEPTION.

Here are two, just from my personal experience.
NY v. Magliato, where Frank Magliato unintentionally discharged the cocked revolver he had pointed at his assailant, killing him.

Sent to prison originally for Depraved Murder, the appellate court reduced the conviction only to Manslaughter, with

the majority opinion holding that it was reckless and negligent to aim a gun with such a light trigger pull at a man one obviously did not intend to shoot at that moment. "

Altering a factory trigger, according to Ayoob (a professional firearms witness), is tempting fate by placing it in the hands of an (IMO) uneducated and likely biased jury.

Been on jury duty lately?

[Res]

However, as mush as a light trigger can get you in trouble it can also get you out of trouble.
Being able to shoot faster with more accuracy is a force multiplier, all things aside.

I agree with you. I'm less worried about premature firing, than I am about being in a stressful situation where I have to focus on not pulling or pushing my sight off center with a 9lb+ trigger. Not an issue at all for me at 3yrds or under. But any further out and its very noticeable in any condition but slow, deliberate target shooting.

[leadstorm]

It is routine procedure for every firearm recovered after a shooting to be sent to the crime labhad two coils removed from the trigger return springthe majority opinion holding that it was reckless and negligent to aim a gun with such a light trigger pull at a man one obviously did not intend to shoot at that moment. "

Altering a factory trigger, according to Ayoob (a professional firearms witness), is tempting fate by placing it in the hands of an (IMO) uneducated and likely biased jury.

Been on jury duty lately?

While I understand your point, I also feel that you are crossing issues. Both of the cases you cite center around the unintentional discharge of a weapon due to lightened fire control mechanisms, both of which ended with adverse effects to the shooter (manslaughter and an out-of-court settlement).

Look at it this way:
If your finger is inside that trigger guard and you've got it pointed at another human being, your immediate intent better be to send a bullet at that person regardless of what your trigger pull may be. Period.

[Citadelgrad87]

While I understand your point, I also feel that you are crossing issues. Both of the cases you cite center around the unintentional discharge of a weapon due to lightened fire control mechanisms, both of which ended with adverse effects to the shooter (manslaughter and an out-of-court settlement).

Look at it this way:
If your finger is inside that trigger guard and you've got it pointed at another human being, your immediate intent better be to send a bullet at that person regardless of what your trigger pull may be. Period.

I lean this way.

The crux of those cases was an unintentional shooting, and the undeniable fact that a lighter trigger makes an nd easier.

If you shoot someone, intentionally, say four times, or to mag lock, there can be no argument that it was an accident or due in any way to a light pull. Your defense will be "I shot him BECAUSE...", and not "I accidentally shot him".

It's similar to hitting someone with your car.

In case a, your brakes are worn, the shocks are in poor repair, and you're driving too fast in the rain. You hit a homeless guy and injure him. You say it was an accident.

In this case, the general condition of the car, and the factors that went into your inability to stop, should all be considered.

In case B, you're leaving a parking garage and a guy steps out, points a firearm at you, and fires a round through your windshield.

You floor it, and push him through a wall with your front bumper. You tell the cops you were in fear for your life, so you floored it and hit him with your car.

In THIS instance, the crappy brakes and other difficulties in stopping are irrelevant and won't be admissible.

That's my two cents.

[robert101]

agree with this I do.^^^^^

[potguts]

I hate to get sucked into this, because there is no right answer, and we are all smart people and make our own decisions. And I particularly value Citadel's opinions.

But I'll just offer this. In case B, it is not at all beyond some aggressive DA to argue to the jury that you were driving a lifted 4x4 truck, with graphics on the side, increased horsepower, and a big cattle guard on the front, the kind of thing that no "ordinary" person drives, and suggest that you had a power-complex that led you to run over the poor innocent pedestrian who shot at you because he feared for his life.

I know, it's crazy, but now it's your attorney's job to defend against it.

I lean this way.

The crux of those cases was an unintentional shooting, and the undeniable fact that a lighter trigger makes an nd easier.

If you shoot someone, intentionally, say four times, or to mag lock, there can be no argument that it was an accident or due in any way to a light pull. Your defense will be "I shot him BECAUSE...", and not "I accidentally shot him".

It's similar to hitting someone with your car.

In case a, your brakes are worn, the shocks are in poor repair, and you're driving too fast in the rain. You hit a homeless guy and injure him. You say it was an accident.

In this case, the general condition of the car, and the factors that went into your inability to stop, should all be considered.

In case B, you're leaving a parking garage and a guy steps out, points a firearm at you, and fires a round through your windshield.

You floor it, and push him through a wall with your front bumper. You tell the cops you were in fear for your life, so you floored it and hit him with your car.

In THIS instance, the crappy brakes and other difficulties in stopping are irrelevant and won't be admissible.

That's my two cents.

[Citadelgrad87]

I hate to get sucked into this, because there is no right answer, and we are all smart people and make our own decisions. And I particularly value Citadel's opinions.

But I'll just offer this. In case B, it is not at all beyond some aggressive DA to argue to the jury that you were driving a lifted 4x4 truck, with graphics on the side, increased horsepower, and a big cattle guard on the front, the kind of thing that no "ordinary" person drives, and suggest that you had a power-complex that led you to run over the poor innocent pedestrian who shot at you because he feared for his life.

I know, it's crazy, but now it's your attorney's job to defend against it.

I do not disagree with this, and, frankly, I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of that.

[CBR_rider]

'Bout that time of the month I guess for one of these threads... I would worry a lot more about what the plaintiff's attorney in a civil suit would say versus what (deputy) District Attorney would say about a trigger in a case of self defense where I have the misfortune of intentionally shooting someone.