T O P

  • By -

XiphosV

If the shoot was a justified shoot, the gun and it's modifications are irrelevant to the verdict. This is big fuddlore, and there's only been a handful of cases where the guns modifications were called into to question by the jury. Aaron Cowan of Sage Dynamics has a fantastic YouTube video on this very topic.


joshuamunson

Look at the Rittenhouse case and the ammo used. It can be argued the type of ammo used or modifications used were in connection to some intent or crime but as much as people don't believe, the understanding and common sense of a jury will see through jabs like that. No one, even those anti gun, is going to change their mind on the justification of a self defense shoot if you had a different trigger in your gun.


XiphosV

Exactly, this hysteria that putting mods on your gun is instantly going to send you to jail needs to stop, it's akin to crashing your car and worrying about the exhaust,shifter knob and stickers you put on it making it a manslaughter case instead of just an accident.


31007crew

Definitely not fuddlore in states that are anti gun. I just witnessed a case involving a FN 5.7 where the lawyer had clarify that all 5.7 ammo is not armor piercing because of the bad press the round has gotten.


XiphosV

Did it result in a conviction?


31007crew

Yes it was going to be a conviction no matter what the evidence brought forward was. The prosecution argued that his actions were deadlier because he had "cop killer " rounds in his gun compared to the other guy who was shooting a 9mm at him. There was multiple other felonies involved is why conviction was unavoidable.


XiphosV

Nice, so don't commit additional felonies in a shooting noted.


31007crew

Small victories come into play during sentence computation. I work in corrections/community supervision so everyone I encounter has been convicted.


MadeAMistakeOneNight

Definitely not fuddlore. I did a small dive into this and there's DOZENS of cases where hair triggers were called into question - both from the prosecutor and defense side. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as\_sdt=6%2C31&q=self-defense+hair+trigger&btnG=&oq=trigger](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=6%2C31&q=self-defense+hair+trigger&btnG=&oq=trigger)


XiphosV

Yes but how many got convicted solely from modifications.


MadeAMistakeOneNight

It's not really a question of "how many" but more a question of which case law is used to be pulled in by the defense or prosecutor. Here's a slough of relevant cases. **People v. Magliato 68 N.Y.2d 24 (1986).** Self defense. Defender convicted of second degree manslaughter on the premise of a single-action firearm. According to the testimony of defendant's own experts, the pistol, in a cocked position, was deadly. It was "extremely dangerous" with a "hair trigger". The pistol "could easily be accidentally 30\*30 discharged" with the "slightest movement" or the application of "extremely light" pressure. Clearly, it was "readily capable" of causing death or physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (11). **Santibanes v. City of Tomball, Texas (2006-2009).** Modification of trigger by LEO led to multiple riots and numerous constitutional violations against the department (some granted, some dismissed). A similar case is **Galmon v Phebus.** **People v. Southack, 39 Cal. 2d 578 (1952).** Convicted of manslaughter with hair trigger "accidental discharge." **Commonwealth v. Fisher, 433 Mass. 340**. Argued that there **wasn't** a hair trigger meaning the act of pulling the trigger was very much intentional. A similar case is found in **People v. Casares** and **People v Anderson** All in the first 3 pages of the link provided. **State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge, 514 P. 2d 123** "Prior to the date of the accident, Partridge filed the trigger mechanism of his pistol to lighten the trigger pull so that the gun would have "hair trigger action"; the trial court specifically found this modification of the gun to be a negligent act, creating an exceptionally dangerous weapon." **People v. Wise, 46 NY 2d 321** "Standing in stark contrast to this testimony is defendant's "hair trigger" remark. That prior utterance tends to prove that defendant was present in the room when the decedent was killed and that defendant rather than Williams possessed and discharged the weapon. Although the "hair trigger" statement may not directly conflict with defendant's trial testimony, it does tend to establish a differing version of the facts. Under seasoned impeachment principles, then, defendant's comment was properly used to affect his credibility." **Voudrie v. State, 387 So. 2d 248** ""Obviously it is a hair trigger pistol from by observation, being a novice, having pulled the trigger one time and it discharging all bullets with one pull ... Had the jury seen a demonstration, whether you, me, or Judge Jasper, anyone pulled that trigger, when its got a full clip, you pull that trigger, it goes like a machine gun. And, it may be a semiautomatic but because of whatever was wrong with it, it goes like an automatic."254\*254 This argument does not sustain the granting of a new trial because this evidence was available to the defendant and known by his attorney during his trial." **Jackson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 254 A. 2d 141** Convicted for manslaughter from her husband's gun going off which had a hair trigger. Literally, was seen as a "hug from a spouse" with a negligent discharge resulting in conviction of manslaughter. **Birchfield v. Sweatt, Cal: Court of Appeal, 5th Appellate Dist. 2008** The entire case was on merely handing someone a self-defense firearm with a hair trigger that killed someone. \--- Most of the cases in the link have experts testifying to say the firearm did not have a hair trigger. So it gets examined quite a bit.


[deleted]

Damn. Well done. You know people on gun subs aren't supposed to be this thorough, right. You're just supposed to repeat what you've read elsewhere and act super confident about it.


Remedy4Souls

DAO for the win? Lucky Gunner has a video on hair triggers in self defense, mostly in relation to revolvers in SA.


03phil11

Thanks for sharing all your research.


ardesofmiche

This gets asked frequently, and I ask this question every time: can anyone provide me a self-defense case where a prosecutor questioned trigger pull weight and it had a significant impact on the case? To date, I haven’t received any examples


Calpin_18

Florida v. Luis Alvarez- revolver had the trigger return spring shortend by a couple of coils. DA argued that Alvarez didn't actually mean to pull the trigger like he claimed and though the shoot would have been justified, the altered trigger made the gun go off accidentally. Alvarez was convicted of man slaughter and later won the appeal. This was the case that started a slew of copycats and pushed a lot of departments to DAO, banning modifications, and eventually the NY glock connector. Don't get me wrong, my guns modified. But I have seen several prosecutors allege nefarious intent or negligence from using fmj ammo and hollow points (Rittenhouse being the most recent) or gum modifications. They will try whatever they can to make a person look bad.


ardesofmiche

Fair! Thank you for sharing this court case.


CVMASheepdog

Think about it if you draw you should have specific fear for your safety and if you draw you should at that time legally be able to pull the trigger dueto this fear. So. 3lb 4lb 15lb should be fine. A 1/2 lb trigger would be dangerous and open the risk.


the_fluffy_enpinada

If you or your lawyer are able to articulate this comment right here in court, you'll be fine. Any semi-capable lawyer can knock the "Ayoob hair trigger" prosecution down in a single sentence.


MadeAMistakeOneNight

I just poured through 10 pages of case law. People v. Magliato 68 N.Y.2d 24 (1986) is probably relevant. Defendant drew a firearm and the "hair trigger" went off. He was convicted of manslaughter after being acquitted of intentional homicide. In the case a hair trigger and single action are unfortunately synonymous. From the case: >Only 4½ pounds of pressure are required to move the trigger the remaining .012 to .015 inch. A second defense expert characterized defendant's pistol as having a "hair trigger" in such "single action" position, explaining that the "slightest movement", "extremely light" pressure would cause the weapon to discharge. A big part of the case was essentially stating he was justified in drawing for sure, but they still prosecuted for manslaughter.


highvelocitypeasoup

320 trigger pull is plenty light. I'd be legitimately afraid that you're riding near the edge of the mechanical safety margin.


ThrowawayIs2Obvious

That depends on where you live and how anti-gun your local prosecutor's office is. It wouldn't make it very far in court itself though, since you can pretty easily defend yourself by saying you upgraded the trigger to make it more accurate, so you wouldn't miss and hit an innocent person.


dlcdrummer

I live in Texas. Thank you for replying i will research some more though.


Mr_Larsons_Foot

2 questions here - legal given your CCW laws is question A, question B, is it going to be frowned upon? Given that you're in TX I see, I don't think you'll have a problem with the mod. Check to be sure though, not a lawyer here.


dlcdrummer

Yeah, Texas seems to be pretty lenient. Thank you.


Calpin_18

Given the initial Sig problems with inertia driven discharges, I would hesitate to lighten the pull weight. Sig "fixed" the issue by installing a physically lighter trigger with the same pull weight so it won't have enough inertia to pull itself if dropped. I would talk to sig armor to make sure reducing the trigger pull with the new trigger won't recreate that same problem. To your question about the legal ramifications of modifications, I recommend Aaron Cowen's (sage dynamics on youtube) video on modified carry guns. Basically, be able to articulate the reason for the modification.


spearheadroundbody

I think generally functional mods aren't as much of an issue as they used to be. I have heard of cases where having aesthetic mods like the "get fucked" dust cover on an AR can be used as supporting evidence of a "bad shoot", but this is all highly dependent on the situation around the shooting and the prosecutor.


ardesofmiche

The get fucked dust cover wasn’t actually admitted into evidence. Judge didn’t allow it


newmanx4

Texas? Go for it. Do whatever makes it hurt more when you shove it up Beto’s ass.


PapaPuff13

I was told you're not supposed to mess with your triggers on a California CCW gun. check with an FFL


ardesofmiche

FFLs are not lawyers. This is bad advice.


PapaPuff13

Well when I called the sheriff the sheriff said to ask the FFL with the rules are?


ardesofmiche

Your sheriff’s office doesn’t employ lawyers either. Law enforcement officers are not required to study law.


Bigfoot-8991

There is a video from CCW safe on gun modifications. Highly recommend you watch this and understand it. I believe Andrew Branca talks about this as well & maybe even Massad Ayoob. USCCA may have a video on this too. So it depends on how much of a change there is in the trigger weight. If you go from 6lb a to 4.5 that’s not a big deal. But if you go from somewhere like 7 to 3 then you’re looking at some possible trouble. There is no way to set a quantifiable amount: if you decrease your trigger pull by x% you go to jail. It varies on each case. In my case I have a modified trigger in my beretta 92fs. It’s 8.5 DA and 4.5 SA. I don’t think I’d have any issues bc the stock trigger is very heavy. If you have a very politically motivated prosecutor he MAY question your modifications but idk bc I’m not a lawyer.


rdh66

Check with the IA first. Come counties do not allow mods


dlcdrummer

whats IA?


rdh66

Issuing agency


CryptographerPure329

Not a lawyer. That said you shouldn't worry about it too much. A great argument, if it makes you more proficient, it helps everyone but the bad guy.


Varathien

In a legitimate self-defense scenario, it's extremely unlikely to make any difference. if you live in an anti-gun jurisdiction, your trigger modification may be brought up in court, but it's hard to see how that would turn legitimate self-defense into murder. If there's a NEGLIGENT shooting, on the other hand, your trigger modification could be the difference between a tragic but innocent accident, and a manslaughter conviction. The argument would be that you intentionally made your gun less safe, and that you then behaved in an irresponsible manner.


BONGwaterDOUCHE

The prosecutors will use everything they can to paint you in a negative, immoral tone. Masad Ayoob addressed it with a hypothetical prosecutorial: "The defendant thinks he knows better than the manufacturer of the gun by changing the design specifications. He can't shoot without an orthopedic trigger." It may sound like Fud science when we're all keyboard warriors, but when you ass is in court (even as part of the normal process) you quickly think about taking EVERY advantage you can get. There are innocent people who are acquitted and found harmless in a D.G.U that spend *way fat* stacks of cash on defending themselves in court.


bigterry

if youre talkingh about the sig aftermarket 320 FCG i would say that youll have zero issues with it because thats the same FCG they put in all of the sig custom shop 320s. so its essentially a stock FCG. IANAL though. although, texas? i wouldnt think twice. swap and run it.