Possible Legal Headaches & the MK23

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Mk23 (Mod 0 or otherwise) is not the first offensive pistol. That honor would go to the wheel lock pistol. Maybe even match lock, but the wheel lock made carrying a brace or more feasible, as well as giving cavalry an all weather hand held pistol that could be fired on horseback, and a second shot was as close as the pommel holster.
As for worrying about your choice of pistol being painted as an offensive weapon in court- I agree with several others here, one of them a lawyer himself, when I say you'll have a lot more things to worry about than that.
 
Posting range pictures of a paper Silhouette full of headshots is much worse and people do it.... I make every reasonable attempt to not enhance any proscuters attempt at going after me, but the initial scene is going to have the biggest impact
 
Considering how little an anti-gunner typically knows about guns, I would be shocked if they’d be able to tell the difference between your Mk 23 and a Glock 17.

And yes, I’m sure that if you use anything more threatening than grandpa’s single-shot shotgun, somebody will think it looks especially threatening. But I doubt it will make much difference in court as long as you have any halfway competent (not even good, just adequate) lawyer.
 
But I doubt it will make much difference in court as long as you have any halfway competent (not even good, just adequate) lawyer.

Here's a consideration, if there is an issue of gun, ammo, etc. that needs to be contested - your excellent lawyers will have to call in an expert. Well, they run from a $1000 to $10000 for their appearance. You may be wired into experts who will do it for just expenses or not. You may have insurance. The competent defense isn't cheap, that's why folks suggest minimizing the risk in such appearance issues.

The quality of the event is the most important. Again, it is when it is ambiguous that you have troubles. Zimmerman, Rittenhouse, and others you have to dig for were clearly ambiguous and thus the prosecution threw in these sort of things.

Even the seemingly good shoot in your home can be iffy.
The sequence of shots can be used against you. Two shots in COM and then a noticeable pause to a third head head shot - the third is murder as the first two were seen to be disabling. Well, how much is that expert going to cost you?

When some says that they don't think this or that will make a difference - how do they know when there precedent cases. Your big worry, though again, is not to get into this with some iffy action. If you do, then the other stuff contributes.
 
I thought about getting a mk or mark or whatever 23 for "old times sake" from back in the day when I was issued one. Big and heavy to carry (which is why no one really carried them) but SO much fun to shoot. The price tag convinced me I didn't want one that bad after all. And if I did own one, it wouldn't be accessible for any type of emergency use inside of a safe, anyway.
 
Posting range pictures of a paper Silhouette full of headshots is much worse and people do it.... I make every reasonable attempt to not enhance any proscuters attempt at going after me, but the initial scene is going to have the biggest impact

That one could go either way. Just like hollow points can be argued that they are safer because they reduce over penetration. One could argue that they did everything in their power to be competent and safe in their gun handling by hitting their target at the range just like police/ fbi etc etc practice at the range.

In my state they used to keep your concealed carry class target. Never worried me that I shot a small group.
 
That one could go either way. Just like hollow points can be argued that they are safer because they reduce over penetration. One could argue that they did everything in their power to be competent and safe in their gun handling by hitting their target at the range just like police/ fbi etc etc practice at the range.

In my state they used to keep your concealed carry class target. Never worried me that I shot a small group.
Intruders are likely going to get target loads because I don't do anything else and that's how my tools are used...
 
Several expert defense lawyers have written that having a clear history of quality self-defense training can be used to your benefit. Neck beard commando stuff - perhaps not. If their lesson plans are full of only use greater than 40 to kill or have a plan to kill everyone in the room - not so great. The latter statements have come up in a trial as suggesting training was to be a tad aggressive. Classes emphasizing the conditions for SD, de-escalation, disengagement first - way to go.

About shooting a tight group and keeping your target. Mas suggests you keep the target from his class. However, there's weird advice out there. When I was taking the first TX CHL test on the old bottle target, I could shoot a tight center group. Then, a guy comes up to me and says I should miss some. Why - because I could shoot so good that I will be asked why didn't I shoot the bad guy in the leg?
The guy says he knows because he is a sniper!

Huh, I thought that was BS until talking to law friends at local and Fed levels who said they heard the same thing from the old toots in their departments. Then, recently, a sheriff in GA, IIRC, is advocating shooting to wound and incapacitate rather than the COM shoots. Been discussed in the police world. BTW, the Dali Lama and President Trump have opined about that. So you never know.

I'm beyond that. You can find easily that I, on a good day, can shoot 113 Alphas out of 120 on a USPSA match. Also, in a IDPA carbine match with a dreaded black rifle be only 3 points down on 5 stages. You can find my picture also in some literature. However, I am a slow old toot. Also, some days I stink it up.

I do know some good lawyers and experts. My guns are not extreme. I've taken plenty of FOF to have a handle on when to do what but who knows? Things can go bad.
 
A good "shoot" ought to be good; even with an "iffy" prosecutor.
A questionable shoot is going to wind up with a lot of questions. And, probably everything will be questioned.
A bad shoot is probably going to go bad.

It's possible to own a high-powered red sports car and not be wallpapered in tickets--but it helps to not drive the thing like you think every paved road is a racetrack.
 
Now if you are in Ca., the Mk 23 came stock with a threaded barrel so these Sacramento buffoons classify it as an “assault weapon”. My buddy carried a Mk 23 as a duty gun until this law was passed requiring AW registration for his H&K. The former Chief had him stop carrying it after this designation due to the potential optics involved. :(

Can it be an issue in a prosecution? Who knows. 31 years in LE, 16 of them working for prosecutors office has shown me; That every case has nuances and facts that differ from every other case; every DDA has knowledge and experience levels that vary; Every State or jurisdiction has statutes or prosecution guidelines that vary greatly. No blanket statement could ever cover all the variables.

Now I will say this; IF you give “ammo” for a prosecutor or a civil attorney to potentially use against you in a criminal or civil case, don’t piss and moan later when they do use it. Statements at the scene or to others, prior internet postings, website visits and text messages, “Kill’em all and let God sort them out” stickers on your AR-15 stock, “Punisher”, SS-Nazi, or even skull and crossbones type engravings or handgrips, etc. are all potentially pieces of “ammo” in a shooting case that any competent attorney would leverage to gain advantages, and any defense attorney would hate to see their client be associated with.

## Hypothetically: If Rittenhouse had adorned his AR with skulls, etc. wouldn’t you expect the prosecutor to pick that gun up and place it under every jurors nose to examine? What a piece gold that would be to sway the jury to form an opinion about his “violent” intent and “killing” state of mind before he even showed up to Kenosha. I certainly would use it as an adversarial attorney, and as a testimonial expert I would expect to be called to make certain these adornments were described and noted in the record.##

This is America; you are free to accessorize and decorate your gun, your house, your body, etc. and post on the web as much as you please. :) There is one caveat; the same freedom (with some restrictions) goes to those who wish to use whatever you have chosen to do against you if you are a criminal defendant or civil respondent in a court hearing.

Now as to the H&K Mk 23 in particular; If I owned or legally possessed one, I would not hesitate to utilize one to defend my life from felonious assault if that was the thing that stood between my staying alive and my being grievously injured or killed.

I do hope none of us are ever placed in a position to have to do that. Even “righteous shootings” are not pleasant in the least. :thumbdown:

Stay safe.
 
I could imagine literally anything and everything being twisted in an ambiguous shoot that comes to trial. “These hollowpoints are designed to expand and kill.” “These FMJ bullets are military style, designed to penetrate deeply for more lethality.” “He used a rifle, which can penetrate common bulletproof vests.” “He used a lever action rifle, much like John Wayne, this shows he’s reckless, above the law, and probably racist.” “He used a pistol which is easily concealed because he wanted to sneak up on his target to kill them” “He used a large handgun which holds more bullets and is more accurate to give himself a better chance of killing his target.” “It has a threaded barrel, the defendant clearly intended to equip his handgun with a sneaky silencer for murder.” You name it and it could be twisted by a slimy lawyer to look bad. Just because it has not already doesn’t mean it’s not possible next week.

I’m not going to deliberately buy the ammo that calls itself “RIP” or whatever, or get Punisher grips for my pistol. But I’m certainly not going to avoid a Mk 23 or any other normal gun just because I worry about the appearance in court of such a gun. I think it could come up but could just as easily could not, even if a prosecutor was trying every angle for a conviction.
 
Statements at the scene or to others, prior internet postings, website visits and text messages, “Kill’em all and let God sort them out” stickers on your AR-15 stock, “Punisher”, SS-Nazi, or even skull and crossbones type engravings or handgrips, etc. are all potentially pieces of “ammo” in a shooting case that any competent attorney would leverage to gain advantages, and any defense attorney would hate to see their client be associated with.

BED68B2A-817E-483A-BC12-E3020B334B0B.jpeg

Indeed...

Your post reminded me of this.
 
Out of curiosity, is there a single defense attorney in this thread that would be concerned about this? I wouldn't. Then again, I don't personally sweat reloads or ammo names either.

If you're shooting an honest to God random armed intruder in your house, none of this will matter. If you're getting in shootouts in the Waffle House parking lot, you've probably got other issues that will matter way more than whether a lethal weapon is marketed as 'offensive."
 
The pistol must have been made for you, then! :rofl:

I like MY HKs... But I’m sure no Fanboi!

So if someone doesn't agree with you it's straight to fanboi? M'kay

The 23 is not the best thing since sliced cheese nor would it be my top choice for a SD gun.
That said, most of the guns I have employed for SD have had/have a Military/LEO background. 1911/92/HK/Glock, etc. etc .. good enough to be issued it should be good enough for lil ol me. Never thought about what a prosecutor might say about that.
 
Out of curiosity, is there a single defense attorney in this thread that would be concerned about this? I wouldn't. Then again, I don't personally sweat reloads or ammo names either.

If you're shooting an honest to God random armed intruder in your house, none of this will matter. If you're getting in shootouts in the Waffle House parking lot, you've probably got other issues that will matter way more than whether a lethal weapon is marketed as 'offensive."

Since The Jury Expert journal asked me to write an article for them about appearance issues and it was one of their top down loads of that year - I would say that that some lawyers worry about this. Would they worry about this particular gun - who knows but the issue is thoroughly discussed in legal and behavioral/legal literature.

The jury decides if it is an honest to God, good shot. The cases discussed are ambiguous, even in the home. You don't know beforehand that yours will be a honest to God shoot. Why do we have to go over this once a month?

That being said, I wouldn't not use this gun except that there are better choices. Anything you use has the risk of being demonized but the point is to minimize it with reasonable choices and the knowledge to defend your choice. Standard hollow point usage is continually brought up, for example. Be ready to spend some bucks to defend it if you are in an ambiguous shoot. Spend some bucks to train up so you don't do stupid things. That solves the problem. Since the HK 23 is probably not a gun used for competition and training, it would be just a fun gun for me and not the primary SD gun.
 
The reason I said "good shot" is because that's the scenario presented in the original post. Would using this gun make a good shot bad? I can't see it.

Obviously, charging decisions and ultimately jury verdicts are case specific. Realistically, if a jury is swung by the defendant using reloads/punisher grips etc, it's likely a bad case to begin with. It's a safer route to carry a non descript revolver with standard ammo. If we're at a point where we're worried about gun marketing and reloads, it's safer still to not carry at all...
 
We are at the point and the point is to take reasonable precautions to avoid such problems. I did say this operates more in bad cases. I said I doubt that appearance alone will cause prosecution. It's a factor once in court but also might influence a DA to charge in an ambiguous case. In NYS, you use your O/U clearly duck oriented shotgun for SD but it's a touch funky. Or you have a non-SAFE act compliant AR with a 30 round mag (of which plenty are stashed in the state). Might that influence a DA who has a hair up their butt on gun control?

You don't really know what is good. For instance, and this has happened, you get into an altercation with someone who attacks you. It is reasonable (let's assume) that you use deadly force. So - bang, bang. Then with a time delay of 5 seconds you fire another shot. The third shot is the one that gets you charged as. Is that an obvious good shoot or not? That scenario has happened.

I don't think we have to swing to despair - OMG, we have to worry about some sensible things, so I won't carry at all. Just be sensible and know the factors.
 
I carry my RMR equipped Mark 23 as my primary EDC. I'm yet to see a shooting decided based solely on the gun so I decided to simply not worry about it. I also don't believe a court case will ever be decided based on a legally owned gun. Closest I've seen to the gun deciding the court case is when Gary Fadden used a Ruger AC556 Assault rifle to end a road rager charging at him with two knives but he still came out on top.
 
A major factor in the forced bankruptcy of Remington Arms was the civil liability attached to their allegedly reckless ("hyper aggressive, militarized") marketing of the Bushmaster AR which was used in the Sandy Hook atrocities. I doubt it would be much of a factor in a criminal prosecution, but I would absolutely be concerned about civil liability if I had used a handgun specifically designed and marketed as "the world's first offensive handgun." I mean, there is a very specific reason why Smith and Wesson sells a gun called the "Shield" and Ruger's advertising tag is "Rugged, Reliable firearms for Responsible Citizens."
 
Keep your range targets and label them based on the pistol you used.

Carry/use whatever centerfire pistol you shoot best with, that is testimony that should carry more weight than a flimsy argument about how it was marketed 20 years ago.
 
Remington is going to be sued again over the Buffalo shooting, using the previous suit and settlement as precedent. Weapon of war, weapon of mass destruction are common terms in the press.

Now going back in time to a case - it was mentioned that if the shooter wanted just to defend himself why did he use hollow points for maximum destruction or lethality.

So read this about this from Wilson in our times:

From Wilson Combat

Lehigh Maximum Expansion bullets expand with razor sharp petals positioned and maintained at the largest diameter to provide the greatest cutting surface. The expansion process of Lehigh's technology is unique from that of a traditional lead jacketed bullet that expands when it comes in contact with a hard surface – we designed these bullets to expand in the vital zone of your intended target

Sounds good doesn't it?
 
Remington is going to be sued again over the Buffalo shooting, using the previous suit and settlement as precedent. Weapon of war, weapon of mass destruction are common terms in the press.

Now going back in time to a case - it was mentioned that if the shooter wanted just to defend himself why did he use hollow points for maximum destruction or lethality.

So read this about this from Wilson in our times:

From Wilson Combat

Lehigh Maximum Expansion bullets expand with razor sharp petals positioned and maintained at the largest diameter to provide the greatest cutting surface. The expansion process of Lehigh's technology is unique from that of a traditional lead jacketed bullet that expands when it comes in contact with a hard surface – we designed these bullets to expand in the vital zone of your intended target

Sounds good doesn't it?

"Easton BloodSport Arrows."

How about this one? :rofl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top