Trigger mods: U.S. v. Slatten
- Thread starter Spats McGee
- Start date
- Status
Do you have access to the Court's order Order 1-2, ECF No. 1036? mentions on page 22 top left?
I am guessing from the context that the current court is reaffirming a ruling made in one of the earlier trials that was carried over to this retrial.
Fwiw, I read footnote 143 (and skimmed the rest for those issues directly dealing with firearm modifications, ballistics, or use (the suppressor issue).
One of more disturbing inferences I gathered from this footnote is that in an earlier trial the government argued that going from a two stage trigger to a single stage constituted making it a more deadly trigger. The DC Circuit appears to have simply lifted the DC District Court's reasoning on this including the same footnote 143 discussion.
Attachment A from the opening statement in the original trial starting at page 5 line 17, has the prosecutor clearly conflating a two stage trigger with a one stage and claiming that making the SR 25 a one stage trigger is tantamount to a hair trigger. https://www.hwglaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/364D8E7D4B082045EF7C1C4E4E4CB31A.pdf
Attachment Z from the same source document only indicates that the Armorers believed that the SR-25 was functioning properly from the snippet of trial transcript presented in that document but that the armorer lacked the ability to alter the trigger himself.
Given that the AR system in general uses a single stage trigger design, I am wondering whether the SR-25 has a single stage or two stage or the option through Knight to specify either as a stock item. I have often seen that former military users of AR's prefer the single stage rather than the older two stage trigger. Often two stage triggers may be lighter than a single stage due to the degree of takeup being a substantial contribution to safety.
The court's order mentioned above might have key arguments dealing with "modifications" of the SR-25 involved in the case.
OP
OP
I do not. I downloaded the case from Westlaw, which wouldn't have that. PACER might.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
Interesting. There isn't much information in the brief on what the modification was and I disdane describing something as a "hair trigger." Changing from (stock?) 2 stage trigger to a 1 stage denotes a drop in trigger mod, and not bubba gun smith lightening. I am curious what trigger mod was used that got him in trouble and what it would mean in a civilian SD shooting? Is Apex in trouble for example.
I had cut my teeth on 1 stage triggers on M4s and the later M16s. Even my SDM-R had a 1 stage trigger. SDM school would have been much easier for me with a 2 stage trigger once I learned what they were. My personal AR has a 2 stage that I bought on a whim and now prefer it.
I had cut my teeth on 1 stage triggers on M4s and the later M16s. Even my SDM-R had a 1 stage trigger. SDM school would have been much easier for me with a 2 stage trigger once I learned what they were. My personal AR has a 2 stage that I bought on a whim and now prefer it.
I agree and will see if I can round up the order via PACER as Spats indicates. I'm not sure what other cases that he is looking at because a light trigger per se is not illegal (AFAIK). I am also aware that trigger modifications have been issues in civil cases regarding liability and criminal in making an illegal full automatic. I am not aware where it has been used as an element to indicate intent to kill people. The Harold Fish case in Arizona had the prosecution argue that a 10mm and hollow points was evidence that Harold Fish was predisposed to kill.
"The firearms investigator said that Fish’s gun — a 10mm — is more powerful than what police officers use and is not typically used for personal protection. And the ammunition Fish used to shoot Kuenzli three times, called “a hollow-point bullet,” is made to expand when it enters the body.
When he decided to pull the trigger, the prosecutor said, Fish should have known what the consequences would be."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15199221/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/t/trail-evidence/
https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/guns-appearances-matter
Fish's appeal was successful on other grounds for a retrial but Mas Ayoob's columns regarding the Alvarez trial of a police officer involved in shooting a suspect in Miami also turned in part on whether the police officer cocked the revolver to have a "hair trigger" single action. https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/16/...-is-aquitted-by-jury-in-slaying-of-black.html
Yes, my read is that apparently courts are ignorant enough about firearms as to allow the prosecution to make arguments based on any modification of the stock trigger in a self defense shooting. It has also been an issue in the past dealing with hollowpoint bullets indicating deadly intentions and why Mas has unpopularly argued that is unwise to rely on handloaded self defense bullets because that would allow prosecutors to claim that you were making evil super duper deadly bullets. The other problem is that GSR (gun shot residue) tests are an important component in shooting investigations. The prosecution could and did (in a NJ case I believe) keep out accused handloading records that would support the idea that the accused loaded light loads for his wife. His defense was to argue that she committed suicide and the distance that the shot was fired was a key piece of evidence for the prosecution. The light GSR residue was argued to be indicative that the shot was fired beyond the distance where the poor women could have conceivably shot herself and thus it must have been murder.
OP
OP
I have a handful of automated searches that run weekly in Westlaw. One of them is for modified triggers. It picks up way more insurance cases than anything (“… triggers a modification to the policy …”), but it occasionally turns up something interesting.
Let me know when your law review article comes out.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
That is a given. I remember during the Zimmerman trial, it was brought up that his firearm did not have a safety or was not used, and it gave the jury something to chew on from a negligence angle. Firearm in question was a Kel-tec P-11, no safety to mess around with.
Good point. I did not remember that (if I knew it at all) in the Zimmerman trial.
- Status
