Gun modification

[Charlie]

I'd think there would be a solid case against someone regarding that child being unsupervised, and the owner of the gun not having it secured, etc., but a gun modification in that situation shouldn't have any bearing.

 

[Utah]

They would damn sure have to have physical proof of that. Let's say it went from a 6 lb. trigger to a 4.5 lb. trigger, how would my fellow jurors convince me that modification made the difference?

They show a video of the kid not able to pull the trigger on an unmodified gun. Is it the truth? -- I dunno.

"Look, the glove doesn't fit!"

Let's play another scenario. Teenager finds an LC9, drops the magazine, and pulls the trigger 'cause he just KNOWS the LC9 has a magazine disconnect safety. Owner removed the disconnect safety. Prosecution argues the gun would not have fired if not modified.

 

[Hoji]

Good rhetoric but I would not, as a jurist, buy any enhancing modification of a weapon as criminal intent unless it was done for the sole purpose of the commission of a specific crime. I don't believe you could get better sights and 5 years later that could be held against you in a self-defense case.

A jury is 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Anyone with the gun knowledge that exists on gun forums would probably be struck by the prosecution in the jury selection process.

 

[easy rider]

Basically you have to remember, unless it is illegal and another charge can be added, it's not the gun modifications a person is on trial for, it's what was your intent that will be argued.

 

[Charlie]

Basically you have to remember, unless it is illegal and another charge can be added, it's not the gun modifications a person is on trial for, it's what was your intent that will be argued.

This. And again, if a kid finds a LC9 ,unsecured, that would be the issue, not a modification.

 

[Charlie]

A jury is 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Anyone with the gun knowledge that exists on gun forums would probably be struck by the prosecution in the jury selection process.

Maybe true, but if a felony is involved, the grand jury would hear the case long before it went to a jury for prosecution. Grand jury members are not the one's that are not smart enough to get out of duty (it's voluntary). And not all people called for jury duty try to get out of it. Intelligence may or may not be a factor. The assumption that all people selected for jury duty are too dumb to get out of it is just that, an assumption.

 

[easy rider]

A jury is 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Anyone with the gun knowledge that exists on gun forums would probably be struck by the prosecution in the jury selection process.

Seems like I read or something close to that out of "Texas Gun Laws: Armed and Educated"

 

[Utah]

This. And again, if a kid finds a LC9 ,unsecured, that would be the issue, not a modification.

Good argument for the defense. However, the prosecution may not agree with you, and the jury might not either. The person is on trial for endangerment, and the gun being unsecured AND the gun being modified to be "less safe" (or whatever words the lawyer wishes to use) are the facts of the case. Maybe the penalty in the verdict moves up or down -- each case would be different. I'm just asserting that the position "it shouldn't matter" doesn't mean that it won't matter.

I enjoy the presentation given to a class of law students (see ) --" law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police." Reinforces how what we think of as "fair" is not how the justice system works. Don't miss the "part 2" of the presentation, where a law student who is a former cop says "and everything he says is true" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE.

 

[Charlie]

Good argument for the defense. However, the prosecution may not agree with you, and the jury might not either. The person is on trial for endangerment, and the gun being unsecured AND the gun being modified to be "less safe" (or whatever words the lawyer wishes to use) are the facts of the case. Maybe the penalty in the verdict moves up or down -- each case would be different. I'm just asserting that the position "it shouldn't matter" doesn't mean that it won't matter.

I enjoy the presentation given to a class of law students (see ) --" law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police." Reinforces how what we think of as "fair" is not how the justice system works. Don't miss the "part 2" of the presentation, where a law student who is a former cop says "and everything he says is true" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE.

I think it's pretty much understood that the prosecutor is not going to agree with the defendant or his attorney. But him/her not agreeing doesn't make the case. It's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt, not the defendant's job to prove themselves innocent.

 

[zackmars]

Maybe if you didn't confuse the facts, I wouldn't feel the need to correct you!

Someone's opinion about the dust cover--especially a lawyer hired for the possible civil suit who has absolutely no bearing on the criminal case--is about the weakest argument there is on this subject. It only proves how pointless this discussion has become, and that the claim that gun modifications have any bearing on criminal proceedings is ridiculous.

But continue attacking the poster and not debating the facts. No one is upset, only laughing at such feeble arguments!

Me confuse the facts? Like you confuse me saying something that i didn't actually say?

You immediately jumping on people, is why this discussion is meaningless.

 

[Utah]

I think it's pretty much understood that the prosecutor is not going to agree with the defendant or his attorney. But him/her not agreeing doesn't make the case. It's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt, not the defendant's job to prove themselves innocent.

Heard a former cop tell of a situation where a child found a gun on school playground. The child got a teacher, and the teacher did what she thought would make the gun safe -- she took out the magazine. She put the gun down to work her radio to get help. A child picked up the gun and fired it. I seem to remember that a child was killed as a result, but I'm not clear in my memory of that part.

So, let's say we catch the goof who threw that modified LC9 when being pursued. Do you charge him with child endangerment (and a litany of related charges), or up it to some sort of homicide since the death wouldn't have occurred if the gun were unmodified? It's not hard to prove the gun was modified, and maybe the goof will do you the favor of saying they modified it. Or maybe a law-abiding citizen made the modification and the gun was stolen -- do we charge the law-abiding citizen with anything?

The prosecution could clearly show the gun was modified. They have a pretty good case that the round would not have been fired had the modification not been made.

 

[benenglish]

Good article on gun modifications and the courts, written by a lawyer -- https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/gun-modifications

The bit that makes the article interesting in my mind is the "opinions" are from a lawyer and expert witnesses.

The article also contains case citations. I note that for the people who haven't read it. I found it illuminating.

Speaking of case citations, this one caught my eye:

the court held that a competition target-shooting rifle with a 2-ounce trigger pull weight was unreasonably dangerous per se.

That's so wrong it hurts. I wonder what the court would have thought of some of my pistols? I have pistols with 1-ounce, 2-ounce, and 6.5-ounce trigger pulls.

 

[easy rider]

I think it's pretty much understood that the prosecutor is not going to agree with the defendant or his attorney. But him/her not agreeing doesn't make the case. It's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt, not the defendant's job to prove themselves innocent.

I get what you are saying, but if proving a case was their real job, no innocents would ever go to jail. Their job is to get a conviction, to convince a jury of guilt.

 

[Charlie]

Heard a former cop tell of a situation where a child found a gun on school playground. The child got a teacher, and the teacher did what she thought would make the gun safe -- she took out the magazine. She put the gun down to work her radio to get help. A child picked up the gun and fired it. I seem to remember that a child was killed as a result, but I'm not clear in my memory of that part.

So, let's say we catch the goof who threw that modified LC9 when being pursued. Do you charge him with child endangerment (and a litany of related charges), or up it to some sort of homicide since the death wouldn't have occurred if the gun were unmodified? It's not hard to prove the gun was modified, and maybe the goof will do you the favor of saying they modified it. Or maybe a law-abiding citizen made the modification and the gun was stolen -- do we charge the law-abiding citizen with anything?

The prosecution could clearly show the gun was modified. They have a pretty good case that the round would not have been fired had the modification not been made.

The issue here is the unsupervised child. Yes a teacher was there but the teacher was negligent for putting the gun down. The child's death was caused by allowing the child to have access to it. The child could have found anything, modified or not, and hurt himself.
We don't have a citizen, or a thief, you're making up things as you go along. These are, as far as I know, a "I heard .......", "what would have happened if..?, etc., etc. "If" that happened, or a situation like that happened, the adult that had the gun after the child found it, should have secured it. Period. The trigger, the safety, the ammo, the sights, etc. wouldn't be part of the equation, in my opinion. You can make up shit and guess at outcomes, etc. all day long. Enjoy your day.

 

[Maverick44]

All these "what ifs" are intriguing and thought provoking, but ultimately nothing more than speculation. Unless you can prove with hard evidence that this is in fact a problem that we need to watch out for, then your argument is just that, speculation. Where are all the cases where someone who had committed no crime was convicted just because their gun was modified? Unless you can show me at least one case where this happened, I'm not inclined to consider you argument to be with merit.

 

[Hoji]

All these "what ifs" are intriguing and thought provoking, but ultimately nothing more than speculation. Unless you can prove with hard evidence that this is in fact a problem that we need to watch out for, then your argument is just that, speculation. Where are all the cases where someone who had committed no crime was convicted just because their gun was modified? Unless you can show me at least one case where this happened, I'm not inclined to consider you argument to be with merit.

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/gun-modifications

Did you read that article? They give examples of actual court cases, opinions from real, qualified experts and lawyers.

 

[Maverick44]

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/gun-modifications

Did you read that article? They give examples of actual court cases, opinions from real, qualified experts and lawyers.

I saw suggestions. I saw vague mentions cases where the issue of a gun modification was brought up, but information about why the cases were brought to trial, and the result of those cases were never mentioned. I saw talk of accidental/negligent discharge cases which have zero bearing on a self defense shooting since the discharge of the gun is in no way accidental in a defensive shooting. I saw cases of lawsuits regarding the safety of certain guns which also has zero bearing a a criminal trial. I saw cases like these, in which a crime was obviously committed that had nothing whatsoever to do with gun modifications.

Willy shot Taffy, his girlfriend, and tried to claim it was an accident. (Actually he shot her with a .40 cal. and then told her father she was “just faking it” as she lay on the floor of the garage bleeding out, so we are not dealing with a rocket scientist here).

“Again, the evidence established that Ms. Hargrove was in a defensive posture at the time of the shooting and that the bullet did not ricochet off of any other object or surface prior to hitting her, indicating a straight-on shot. Mr. Hargrove testified that Defendant fled the scene immediately, which further allows for an inference of guilt. Testimony was introduced to the effect that .40 caliber weapons generally have a trigger pull weight which greatly reduces the chances of accidental discharge and that, generally, an individual has to have intent to pull the trigger of a .40 caliber weapon.** Finally, Ms. Hargrove stated that Defendant ‘just shot me.’ This evidence as a whole indicates that the gun was not discharged by accident.

I saw a lot of things in that article, and in the end, I caulk it all up to a large amount of mumbling that has very little to do with actually using a modified gun in a defensive shooting. There was not a single case anywhere in that article in which a true defense shooting resulted in a case being brought to trial due to the use of gun modifications. All of them were either criminals who tried to use a claim of self defense after committing their crime, or a case brought to trial due to negligence in a case that had nothing to do with self defense. Frankly, that article is useless in this argument. All it really tells me is that you shouldn't leave guns with a light trigger around idiots who don't know how to handle them.

 

[Utah]

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/gun-modifications

Did you read that article? They give examples of actual court cases, opinions from real, qualified experts and lawyers.

Thanks for pointing this out, Hoji.

I tried to lead with data, but then I played along with the "it would never happen 'cause *I* think..." game. Good for some entertainment on a Sunday afternoon.

Hehe, reminds of the debate team in junior high (no, I wasn't on the team -- never cared for the stuff). When faced with data, go to opinion. When faced with opinion, demand data. When faced with both, talk about feelings.

 

[Hoji]

Hope that #1- you are never in a defensive shooting and #2 if you are, you are somewhere that your tricked out race gun that you carry for defense is never brought up and lastly, you have adequate representation.

I am still waiting for the LEOs that have posted in favor of modifying your EDC to come back with what their department's allow for modifications on their duty weapons.

 

[Maverick44]

Hope that #1- you are never in a defensive shooting and #2 if you are, you are somewhere that your tricked out race gun that you carry for defense is never brought up and lastly, you have adequate representation.

I am still waiting for the LEOs that have posted in favor of modifying your EDC to come back with what their department's allow for modifications on their duty weapons.

#1 I hope I'm never in a defensive shooting too.

#2 I don't consider a set of decent night sights and possibly a nicer trigger (about all I feel I would need to do to a gun) to be a tricked out race gun.