Legality of "modified" concealed carry weapons

[Erik M]

I was recently informed by a gun store employee (who is also a deputy constable in my county) that if an individual is involved in a self defense incident your weapon must be in factory new condition, lest you face indictment for having shot someone with what he called a "race gun" and "speed shooting weapons". Apparently lightened springs can illegally impede your judgement by not providing enough resistance when firing the weapon. He advised me not to buy any aftermarket parts to improve the function of my pistol. Ive carried concealed for years and never heard such statements, I cannot find concrete recorded incidents of this, is it just an irrational fear?

 

[bigfatdave]

mostly nonsense, tons of discussions on the subject in the archives

 

[GRIZ22]

In a SD shooting I can't see how gun modifications will hurt you. However, in an unintentional discharge situation light springs, action jobs, removal or deactivation pf safety devices, etc will arise to haunt you and be used against you.

 

[kcshooter]

There's some logic behind the case for carrying an unmodified weapon. If you do have to defend yourself, you are potentially giving an overzealous prosecutor a possible point of contention. It's a very small chance, but it's there.

Not every self defense incident is black and white. You may find yourself having to defend your actions. While I don't think you will find much case law about it, it is a possibility and therefore might not be the best plan.

Sure, some people will tell you it's a non-issue and nothing to worry about, but I like to stack the chips in my favor as much as possible, so that's the choice I made.

 

[Sam1911]

The usual braying repetition of half-understood misconceptions.

The kernels of plausible valid theory in that statement are so small as to be largely discountable.

But here they are:
1) If somehow your self-defense claim is not so clear on its surface that you do end up tried for manslaughter or murder, the prosecutor COULD, perhaps use your interest in weapons -- to include studying their workings and modifying them -- as a way of discrediting you as a reasonable person in the eyes of the jury. S/he could, possibly argue that you were the sort of person who WANTED to shoot someone else and sought out the opportunity -- or some such thing. Thus making your claim to have HAD to shoot to save your life false.

Of course, this is a long shot. Your case would have to be very questionable to begin with, and then the prosecutions reasons for fighting your self-defense claim would have to be so thin that they're trying, in essence, a character defamation ploy to win a conviction.

This is a far cry from saying that there is a LAW against using even the wildest "race gun" in self-defense. There is NOT such a law.

2) If, somehow, the prosecution was to argue that this was an accidental shooting, a "hair trigger" could be pointed to as a contributing factor. But then, your whole self-defense claim would be invalid. Self defense means you're saying, "I did it, and here's why." Usually that completely precludes any claim of accidental shooting. So, again, the circumstances would have to be quite odd for the type of gun to really matter.

The long and the short of it is, very few police officers (...especially "Deputy Constables" ) have a really good grasp on what self-defense law really entails. They just don't see very many lawful self-defense cases, and aren't deeply involved in the prosecution or defense of them. They know they need to investigate and arrest in the case of almost any homicide (and ANY homicide in some places) and that's often about it. Others will decide whether to prosecute and on what grounds -- and on what grounds the defender will be exonerated of wrongdoing.

In other words...DON'T ask a cop about defense law.

 

[Rmeju]

Only ask a cop (or any other non-lawyer... cops aren't special in this regard) about SD laws if you want to forego your constitutional right to defend yourself, or don't care about the veracity of your information.

People ask cops about their rights, but cops aren't lawyers. Most are good or even great people, and many have great intentions. And they are certainly THE foremost authority on how they will actually enforce laws that do (or do not) exist. Whether an enforcement action (i.e. arrest, charge, etc.) will stand, fail, or give you cause for a big $$ civil rights action won't depend on the cop's understanding of the law. It will depend on what the law actually is, and what the cop did to you when he tried to enforce what he thought was the law.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Posting on gun forums could be used against you in a self defense trial, no?

Or, how about if you clean your gun? You are obviously obsessed with your gun and the idea of shooting someone with it if you clean your gun repeatedly, no?

Or, how about practicing often, especially if you use silhouette targets? Obviously a sign of some abnormal trend towards violence.

Or, if you yell "STOP!" before you shoot, you obviously didn't feel your life was in imminent danger if you felt you had time to yell before shooting.

Or, if you don't yell "STOP!" before you shoot, now you just wanted to shoot the person and didn't take all reasonable measures to stop the crime before shooting.

One extra round pinkie rest type magazine extensions? How about carrying a spare magazine? +P ammo? And those EXTRA lethal expanding bullet especially designed to kill hollow points.
Creative lawyers can come up with anything.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Apparently lightened springs can illegally impede your judgement by not providing enough resistance when firing the weapon.

Well, a funny if not enlightening remark.

I know of no statutes where the end-user of a gun (either himself or through a gunsmith) is prohbited from modifying a firearm UNLESS the finished product violates a state AWB, NFA or 18 USC 922r. For example, NJ specifies with a permit each individual handgun that may be purchased, but I don't think the user is then prohibited from (for example) then using a .40-to-9 conversion barrel. In MA, DA handgun triggers must be at least 10# when sold, but there is no statute against changing them after purchase.

I do not know if, in places (like NYC) where a specific handgun is licensed for carry, whether modifications to that handgun may be made.

There is the larger issue of whether some modifications (especially those that might be labeled as "removing a safety" or making the gun "more deadly"--perhaps like installing a "Helfire"-like rapid fire trigger) might set you up for civil or even criminal legal problems if you use the modified gun for SD. That liability would stem from a perception that a person making such modifications might be demonstrating recklessness or malice.

 

[One Cool Dude]

In the gray areas where self defense is unclear or ambiguous it could be used against you. What if Zimmerman were carrying a .223 pistol with all sorts of lasers night sights and ten magazines?

It shouldnt change any facts of the case but juries are not composed of the smartest people trained in logic

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Erik M: I was recently informed by a gun store employee (who is also a deputy constable in my county) that if an individual is involved in a self defense incident your weapon must be in factory new condition, lest you face indictment for having shot someone with what he called a "race gun" and "speed shooting weapons".

That's nonsense.

Apparently lightened springs can illegally impede your judgement by not providing enough resistance when firing the weapon.

I wouldn't describe it that way, but there is something to be said about trigger mods. More on that later.

He advised me not to buy any aftermarket parts to improve the function of my pistol. Ive carried concealed for years and never heard such statements, I cannot find concrete recorded incidents of this, is it just an irrational fear?

In my opinion it's not very rational.

A less-than-factory-spec trigger pull weight can (1) lead to an unintentional discharge, because of the impairment of fine motor skills resulting from stress; (2) give a plaintiff's attorney a basis for arguing in civil court, where the threshold for judgment is a preponderance of the evidence rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", that what the defendant claims to have been a willful and justified shooting, was instead an intentional discharge; (3) after an ambiguous shooting (i.e., a shooting in which the evidence available after the fact does not clearly support justification), provide the investigators, the charging authority, the prosecution, and should it come to that, the triers of fact in criminal court, evidence pertaining to state of mind; or (4) provide a prosecutor with evidence to support a charge of involuntary manslaughter when the defendant claims that the shooting was justified and intentional.

Posted by kcshooter: Not every self defense incident is black and white.

That bears repeating. It is also important to realize that, even if a shooting was in fact completely justified under the law, what will carry the day is the evidence available after the fact. The incident will not have taken place on a sound stage, with the action choreographed for best effect on a captive audience, and there will be no instant replays. It is likely that the recollection of witnesses will be incomplete and possibly incorrect.

Sure, some people will tell you it's a non-issue and nothing to worry about, but I like to stack the chips in my favor as much as possible, so that's the choice I made.

Excellent idea.

This has been discussed on another board recently, See this. Our Moderator Frank Ettin posted this on the subject of modified triggers.

It would be one thing to tune an overly heavy gritty trigger to get a good service trigger. It would be another thing to set up the trigger to be very light.

I know someone who is a police instructor and armorer and who could be an expert witness. He will state that a 4 to 5 pound trigger is appropriate for a service handgun (single action or striker fired) and that he will not set a trigger lighter than 4 pounds. If I used one of my 1911s with a 4.5 pound trigger, he will be testifying for me. If someone used a 1911 (or another handgun) with a 3 pound trigger, he will be testifying for the DA. His testimony will be something to the effect that as an expert he would consider carrying a gun with a trigger lighter than 4 pound is reckless.
Having lightened the trigger, a prosecutor can vilify you as reckless and trigger happy. That will not sit well with a jury of folks who know nothing about, and aren't interested in, guns. The prosecutor will no doubt be able to find and put on the witness stand a police armorer or firearms instructor as an expert witness that something like a 3.5 pound trigger on a gun to be carried for self defense is reckless.

You might claim that you acted intentionally in self defense, but the prosecutor could point to the lightened trigger and perhaps convince a jury that you actually fired the gun accidentally. That might get you convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Messing around with your carry gun might not hurt you in court, but it sure won't help you any. And it really won't help you on the street. If you can't manage a stock, service Glock or a 1911 with a 4.5 pound trigger in a real life encounter, it's you and not the gun (get some serious training and practice).

No one will ever be indicted for "having shot someone with...a 'race gun' and 'speed shooting weapons' ". Altering a firearm to have a 3.5 pound trigger pull is not illegal, and but it is not a good idea to carry such a weapon. Reasons encompass safey as well as legal risks.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Since Kleanbore quoted me, I might as well chime in.

This subject has been discussed extensively. See --

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=586981

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=566648

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=550258

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=481801

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=466935

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=605241

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=500905

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=480258

The bottom line is that it's not illegal. And some modifications are probably innocuous. But some, like a very light trigger or disabling a safety device, could make life harder for you if you wind up in court.

And then there's the old saw about "a good shoot is a good shoot." Well, you will not have the final say on whether or not your act of extreme violence was justified. Other people will be deciding that. So if you think you were justified but the DA and/or grand jury disagree, it's not a "good shoot" unless your trial jury decides that it was. Not all cases of claimed self defense are easily resolved. It depends on what happened and how it happened and a lot of factors that will not be in your control.

Posting on gun forums could be used against you in a self defense trial, no?

Or, how about if you clean your gun? ...

Or, how about practicing often, ...

....

Creative lawyers can come up with anything.

A lawyer is ethically required to zealously advocate in his client's interests and use anything available to, within the rules, try to further the client's interests. You'd expect nothing less from your lawyer. And the prosecutor's client is the state seeking a conviction, so of course he'd use whatever could, within the rules, further his case.

Anything can and very possibly will be used against me. It becomes a matter of risk management and a risk versus utility analysis. There are things that could help me in the street, because they can improve my chances for survival in the street. But they could also be used against me, so I need to plan ways of dealing with them to ameliorate the legal aftermath risks. But if something won't necessarily help me in the street and has a downside in the aftermath, why bother? I'll just avoid the issue altogether.

Or to put it another way:

• I use quality, JHP ammunition of the sort commonly used by law enforcement agencies. This could be used against me in court, but I have decided that the risk is warranted because of the generally superior terminal performance of such ammunition. Therefore, I am prepared to meet attacks on my use of such ammunition.
  
  
• I have sought out training, and I practice. I recognize that these things can be used against me in court, but I have concluded that by being trained I have a better chance to prevail in an emergency. So I have prepared to deal with attacks on my training.
  
  
• Using a heavily modified gun could be used against me. But I have trained and practiced sufficiently to be effective with a stock gun. So I have no good reason to use a heavily modified gun and take any risks on that account.
  
  
• I gain no material advantage in the street using handloaded ammunition instead of good commercial ammunition. Therefore, I see no reason to take any risks, even if remote, by using handloaded ammunition.

 

[oneounceload]

Of course, this is a long shot. Your case would have to be very questionable to begin with, and then the prosecutions reasons for fighting your self-defense claim would have to be so thin that they're trying, in essence, a character defamation ploy to win a conviction.

You mean like a certain case in the Orlando area that has made recent national news?.........

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I have sought out training, and I practice. I recognize that these things can be used against me in court....

I have heard dedicated antigunners complain that lack of training or practice among civilians who own or carry for self defense is their objection (usually calling for training and range test for carry permits).

When I hear arguments over what might be used against a self-defender in court, I feel like the old man in "Raising Arizona": ""Well, which is it, young feller? You want I should freeze or get down on the ground? Mean to say, iffen I freeze, I cant rightly drop. And iffen I drop, Ima gonna be in motion....."

I have a question: due to painful arthritis of my trigger finger, if the design of the gun allows it, I sometimes use my middle finger to pull the trigger. Would that be used by a prosecutor as a sign I was disrespecting my attacker?

 

[locnload]

It seems that most here are in agreement that a posecutor or a plaintiffs lawyer in a civil suit, will throw whatever kind of dung they can come up with and see if it sticks. In a violent encounter, I am more concerned about gaining an advantage over my attacker than I am about giving "Larry the lawyer" reason to question my claim of self defense. God forbid, if I ever have to pull the trigger on someone to defend myself or someone else, it will be intentional, and it will make no difference if my trigger requires 8 lbs or 3.5 lbs of force. Any modifications or aftermarket features of my carry or competition guns, are in place to enable me to handle the gun more efficiently and more accurately. I'm sure there are lawyers and prosecutors that will argue one day that a person with little to no formal training is incompetent to handle a firearm, and the next day try to protray those of us who invest in training and compete on a regular basis as "gun nuts" and mad dogs. Thats just what lawyers do. Our job is to present am unwavering case of a justifiable shooting. And according to a lawyer that presented a class I recently attended, never, never, never let them talk you into saying something like "I didn't mean to shoot him" It will blow you claim of self defense right out of the water.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by locnload: It seems that most here are in agreement that a posecutor or a plaintiffs lawyer in a civil suit, will throw whatever kind of dung they can come up with and see if it sticks.

A prosecutor, a plaintiff's attorney, and a defendant's attorney will present evidence to further his or her client's case. That does not equate to throwing "whatever kind of dung they can come up with" to "see if it sticks".

Let's examine a hypothetical self defense shooting from the criminal aspect. As we go over this, we need to understand that the only persons who know the following facts are the shooter and the person who was shot.

• An armed citizen encountered someone near his or her car in a parking lot after dark.
• That "someone" approached menacingly and demanded money or the car keys.
• The armed citizen warned the presumed "attacker" to stay back.
• The other person kept coming.
• The armed citizen, under stress, became alarmed; he or she saw what appeared to be a furtive movement, concluded that the other person was reaching for a weapon, and drew and fired.

That's our hypothetical case. That's what happened. But what do the investigators have to work with after the fact?

• There is a wounded person.
• The shooter testifies about what he or she allegedly experienced, admitting to the shooting and claiming self defense.
• The other person, or his accomplice, tells a different story.
• A witness says only that he or she heard what sounded lke an argument amd then heard shots, and turned to see one person on the ground and another holding a firearm.
• There's the forensic evidence, and the identity of the person who inflicted the wounds is not in question; there is no indication that the person shot had presented a weapon; the weapon is there to be evaluated, for the trigger pull to be tested, and so on.
• There is no record that describes the events that led up to the shooting as they happened.

Remember--our hero is not wearing a white hat or a halo.

Should the investigators conclude that the evidence is consistent with a criminal assault made knowingly and willfully, or with an unintentional shooing resulting from recklessness, and should the state's attorney proceed on that basis, does that constitute "throwing out" some "kind of dung" to "see if it sticks"? NO! It is what we pay them to do--what we expect of them.

And the triers of fact will have to decide what happened beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of the evidence.

In a civil trial, the triers of fact will decide based on a preponderance of the evidence. That's a much lower threshold.

The trigger pull of the weapon, and how it compares to the manufacturer's specification, is evidence. One more piece of evidence one way or the other, or one less, can determine the outcome.

In a violent encounter, I am more concerned about gaining an advantage over my attacker than I am about giving "Larry the lawyer" reason to question my claim of self defense.

Anyone who believes that a lighter-than-spec trigger pull will provide an advantage over an attacker should avail himself or herself of some training before getting into trouble.

God forbid, if I ever have to pull the trigger on someone to defend myself or someone else, it will be intentional, and it will make no difference if my trigger requires 8 lbs or 3.5 lbs of force.

That's an assumption.

As Frank Ettin points out, there are plenty of experts who will testify otherwise.

Those who attend MAG-20 will hear Mas Ayoob say the same thing.

 

[mljdeckard]

This is news to me, that a lightened spring will affect my judgement.

Anything is possible in court. As the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich. Whether or not such a charge will ultimately stick is another topic, but you could spend your life savings to prove it.

There is a list of things that could theoretically get you into legal trouble. We frequently discuss things like carrying handloads, modifying triggers, disabling safeties, etc. Opinions vary greatly. Clint Smith says you should mostly worry about surviving the gunfight first. You can only get charged if you live. Ayoob could give you a very well-informed treatise on how you did several things the prosecution is going to exploit. I think a lot of it depends on where you live. In my state, the legal protections and current precedents are very strongly favoring defensive shooters. Most defensive shootings in the home don't result in arrest, the shootings outside the home where you may be held are usually resolved quickly. This may not be the case everywhere else.

There is no guarantee about anything. Only degrees of likelihood. I tell students that it is a bad idea to disable a safety on any gun. If a gun has a safety you don't like, get a different gun. I wouldn't carry a gun with a trigger lighter than about 4 lbs, because that is what I am used to shooting. If you are well-practiced with something else, and you can run it consistently, go ahead and do it. For a defensive revolver, I believe you should only shoot DA, and it's not a bad idea to have the hammer spur and cocking notch removed.

And the last person I would ask for this kind of advice is the counter guy at a gun store.

 

[smalls]

Why would you even bother listening to a "deputy constable"? They have no part in the prosecution of anyone, except as a witness, maybe. What does he know?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mljdeckard: There is a list of things that could theoretically get you into legal trouble.... Ayoob could give you a very well-informed treatise on how you did several things the prosecution is going to exploit.

I'm not sure I would include the word "theoretically". I would simply italicize "could".

I think a lot of it depends on where you live.

Not to discount that, but on the criminal side, I think the attitude of the prosecutor can have a lot to do with it, also (Larry Hickey's case took place in "gun friendly" Arizona).

There is no guarantee about anything. Only degrees of likelihood.

And that is a true statement.

I would assess as extremely high the likelihood that the trigger pull of a firearm used in an unclear case, or in any case in which a plaintiff's attorney detects the scent of money from an insurance company, will be tested.

 

[mljdeckard]

I certainly agree. The Fish case was in AZ. and the Trevon Martin case is in FL, where you would normally expect the shooter to get the benefit of the doubt. Anything can happen anywhere.

 

[Rob G]

I've been reading through this thread and it definitely presents some interesting thoughts in regards to my own concealed carry gun. I just started carrying an M&P 40c (.40 cal) with a factory S&W 357 Sig barrel in it. My reasons for it for were that I actually wanted it in 357 Sig, but they don't make it in that caliber any more, so replacing the barrel was my only way to acheive that. Now I wonder if some attorney might some day try to argue that I did it in order to make my gun more lethal. Defnitely something to think about.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Now I wonder if some attorney might some day try to argue that I did it in order to make my gun more lethal.

Personally, I doubt there's any worry. Arguing that .357 SIG is "more lethal" than .40 S&W would take some creativity.

More to the point: be prepared to articulate a reasonable explanation for any modification you make on your SD firearm. Because, someday, you may be asked to explain it.

 

[leadcounsel]

A gun is a gun, as long as it's legal and legally possessed.

A shoot is a good or bad shoot, independent of the weapon used, provided it's legal and legally possessed...

 

[Frank Ettin]

A shoot is a good or bad shoot, independent of the weapon used, provided it's legal and legally possessed...

Except this article, published in The Jury Expert, the journal of the American Association of Trial Consultants, discusses how the type of gun used can affect the perceptions of a trial jury deciding if the shoot was good or bad.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by leadcounsel: A shoot is a good or bad shoot, independent of the weapon used, provided it's legal and legally possessed...

But what is that makes a "shoot" a "bad " one or "good"?

As discussed in the article provided by Frank, those who decide that not only may be influenced by the weapon, it can reasonably be expected that they probably will.

Whether or not the weapon is legal or legally possessed will not determine the lawfulness of the shooting per se.

And while the OP did not ask, and while I am sure that no one on this forum is subject to stress or to any other human failings, a firearm with a trigger pull weight that is too light, or a revolver with a hammer that has been cocked, is in fact more likely to be fired uninentionally under stress--which will not constitute a "good shoot."

 

[kcshooter]

A shoot is a good or bad shoot

Inherently, yes. To a prosecutor and/or jury of your "peers", maybe not.

Keep that in mind. Regardless of whether or not YOU know it was a good shoot, without a witness or recording, you may have to prove that.