[Spieler]

In the Sept. issue of Combat Handguns Mas Ayoob interviews Miami lawyer Mark Seiden who is an adament proponent of using only box-stock guns for self defense. The argument is that if charges were brought against someone in a self-defense shooting that a (anti-gun, anti-self defense?) prosecutor COULD make an issue out of any modifications made to a weapon and use that against you in court. His view seems to be that lighter than factory triggers, exotic ammo and accessories and any disabling of safety features (ie. BHP mag disconnector!) are absolute non-nos and he closes with "...I have to tell you that a cocked and locked single-action autopistol is tough to defend in court."

So, my question is whether anyone here shares this view and carries only factory-stock self-defense gun(s)? Or for that matter, how much thought has anyone given to the prospects of facing a jury of their peers in the event that you are charged following a self-defense shooting?

I feel confident in my abilities to defend myself and my family with a firearm within the limits of the law, but must admit that the prospect of being arrested, charged and put on trial following a SD shooting, however remote, scares the heck out of me.

I normally carry a G17 and sometimes a Beretta M21A as CCW guns, both of which are stock factory with no modifications whatsoever. This stems more from me really not being much of a tinkerer and generally being satisfied with quality firearms as they come from the manufacturer, but perhaps it could also save me in court? Something to think about or just a bunch of bull? Tell me what you think.

Thanks

[Zundfolge]

This comes up once in a while and I think its a pointless and silly argument.

If someone here can post ONE case where someone lost in court after a self defense shooting because of their modified gun then I'll shut up, but otherwise this is just a bunch of silly theoretical discussion for lawyers and "armchair lawyers"

[Telperion]

What Zundfolge said. And also, how would a DA find out what whiz-bang action job you've had done to your gun? Yes I know it is SOP to confiscate the gun during investigation, but most likely you'd have to tell him. So don't.

[Travis McGee]

Ayoob has always made this arguement against using hand loaded ammo. Listen to the DA:

"So Mr. Jones was not satisfied with the killing power of ordinary .40 caliber ammuntion! He had to create his own EXTRA POWERFUL bullets, with particularly dangerous hollowpoints, to guarantee that his victims would die!!!! He intended to kill them!!!!!"

Etc etc blablabla.

[Andrew Wyatt]

it's a load of bunk. explain calmly and rationally what each modification was for, and why being able to hit what you aim at is safer for the public at large.

[Jeff OTMG]

The only way that it can cause a problem is to prove negligence. If you shoot accidentally and hurt someone then it can come back to bite you by showing that you were negligent in lightening the trigger pull. If your shooting was intentional and justified and you fired two or three bullets into your attacker, how will a magazine disconnect safety cause a problem. The only case that Mas has ever said, that I have heard, that it had caused a problem was some guy in his office had an AD with a 1911 and killed a bystander. The guy had a BHP with the mag safety removed in his car. It was introduced to show that he was reckless in his decisions thereby showing negligence.

In a good shoot it is all BS used to sell mags IMO.

[boing]

Hogwash.

[Delmar]

I'd like to know how in the heck they would know you were carrying cocked and locked BEFORE the shooting? The way some of these writers and DA's are going at it, you are apparently supposed to ask permission from the bad guy to run home, unlock your safe, grab your weapon and ammo, run back to the scene and verify with the BG that you are in fact using factory ammo, load it into the mag and then shoot them!:scrutiny:

[firestar]

it's a load of bunk. explain calmly and rationally what each modification was for, and why being able to hit what you aim at is safer for the public at large.

You've never delt with a lawyer if you think "calmly and rationally" are going to fly.:D Laywers play to the ignorance and fears of the sheeple. I think Ayoob is right on the money. I flat out would NOT use handloads in a selfdefense gun for just these reasons. Also "hair" triggers, removing safeties and skulls and crossbones on the grips may look bad in court.

Stock gun with stock ammo is the best idea. If you can't find a stock gun that you can shoot well enough for defense then you can't shoot. If you need a 2lb trigger and a red dot scope to hit a man sized target a 7 yards, you are probably better off with a can of mace.

Some mods may be worth the small risk. I had to remove my mag safety on my hi-power because the gun had a extra heavy trigger that hurt my finger to shoot. After market grips are fine and so are trigger jobs that don't give you a "hair trigger" but rather smooth out and slightly lighten the pull. How would the prosecutor know you had a trigger job if it isn't super light?

Also some guns just look "evil". Tec-9, Cobray M-11, etc. I would hate to have to defend using one of those to a jury! I am sure I could hit more accuratly and faster with my Beretta 92fs than with a M-11 or a Tec-9 but to a jury, those guns are more deadly somehow.

[boing]

I had to remove my mag safety on my hi-power because the gun had a extra heavy trigger that hurt my finger to shoot.

So...you defeated a safety, making your gun unsafe, just so you could get a hair trigger, so you could kill people easier.

And you think Ayoob is right on the money?

:confused:

Gungeek techno-rationalizations either play to a jury or they don't...?

[Majic]

and he closes with "...I have to tell you that a cocked and locked single-action autopistol is tough to defend in court."

He also have to tell us how many cases he's had like that to know how tough it was.

Kinda funny how Ayoob ( and who elevated him to his status anyway) only print the interview of a lawyer that sees things from his perspective.

[Jim March]

First, nobody can fault you on grips and sights. Grips simply fit the gun to your hand, tritium or whatever sights help you hit.

"Reliability mods" like a feed-ramp polish or smoothing out the firing pin channel on a Keltec or whatever are similarly unassailable. On a revolver, having the timing cleaned up, the barrel/cylinder gap set right and the cylinder slop tightened are no different than making a car run right.

Now, if you do mods on a gun that, if it was a car, would involve nitrous and a blower stickin' outta the hood, then ya, maybe Mas is on to something. "Disabling a safety", ya, I can see how you'd get hosed.

My personal opinion: any such attempt by the prosecutor to drag you into a "look how evil my gun is" swamp should be met by "no, there's nothing that funky about my gun, he's dragging all this up because HE KNOWS HE DOESN'T HAVE A CASE, it was a clean shoot, so he's trying this smoke and mirrors crap to throw you off - don't buy it, folks!".

[Legionnaire]

Yes, I believe in stocking guns for self defense ... oh ... never mind.


:neener:


Actually, I've had this argument with Ayoob. At least in our conversation he came around to the point where he was accepting of mods that make a gun more controllable and help you get on target. But excessive lightening of a trigger, or tinkering with safeties, or anything that could be attacked as contributory negligence would be a no-no.

Remember this: If you are going to use a firearm in self defense, you will need a lawyer who understands the concept of an affirmative defense. That is, you'll be arguing that, "Yes, I shot him; and this is why it was justified." So mods that helped you do what you intended efficiently and effectively should not be a problem. If, however, you find yourself saying, "I drew my gun to scare him and it accidentally went off," you're in deep doo and those mods that may have contributed to the gun "going off" are going to get you hung.

[Lone_Gunman]

I think there may be some truth about what the lawyer said, and I will explain.

First, though, I would say that if your shooting is justifiable, then it doesn't really matter with what you do the shooting, from a criminal standpoint.

However, the inevitable civil lawsuit will be where the type of gun or ammo used might become a problem for you. It is my understanding that it is not as hard to prove liability as it to prove criminal wrongdoing. The lawyer will do everything he can to sway the jury against you in hopes of getting a large monetary reward. If he can portray you as a gun nut, who modifies his guns to make them more lethal, and uses super deadly ammo, then he figures the jury won't like you, and make you pay more money.

Whether or not his claims make any sense, or can be logically proven, or supported by experts, is irrelevant. Its all about the money.

If you think lawyers don't do stuff like that on a daily basis you are wrong. I have served as an expert witness in several medical malpractice cases, and you would not believe some of the things they try. Most recently, they asked an accused doctor if he was a member of the Country Club. It was a sleazy tactic designed to make him look like a rich man with a lot of spare money.

It will all come down to how sleazy the lawyer is, and how much trouble he is willing to go through to get your money.

[cool45auto]

I'd like to think that if I ever ended up in court for a shooting that I could dazzle all the antis in the jury with talk of my "customized" gun and how fun it is to shoot since its modifications and end up taking all the converts to the local range!:D

[RTFM]

A question to everyone that thinks it crap, pointless or hogwash.

Have you or anyone you’ve known ever been up against a district attorney (should I add zealous anti-gun DA) and try to defend your self against the custom modified pistol?

I haven’t and hope to God I never have to.
But don’t you think that your defense would be more plausible if your personal defense gun is a stock pistol shooting stock factory ammo?
I’ll go one better, what about a defense gun that matches what your local police, or your state police use?
Makes it harder to say you’re a wild gun child if your fire arm matches the LEO’s, as opposed to some sexy, chromed, polished, compensated, lasered, with removed magazine safety using pre-ban super-sized magazines import pistol in your defense.

Just my brain droppings, I’ll have to go get the magazine, I find this topic interesting. Spieler I’m in the affirmative for the stock pistol.

As a side note, every time I go to the range, I keep a log of when I shoot, what gun, number of rounds, and have the range master or safety officer sign and file a target from that days shoot. Some of you may say it’s malarkey to do that, but I see it as a C.Y.A. exercise.
If it ever comes to a question of “he has a gun and does not know how to use it”, at least I have a 10 year paper trail of targets, signatures and locations that I have shot in (including some of my time in the Army (WAR MONGER!!!!)) to prove different. Again, just my brain droppings FWIW.
RTFM

[fish2xs]

>> Or for that matter, how much thought has anyone given to the prospects of
>> facing a jury of their peers in the event that you are charged following
>> a self-defense shooting?

I have given it alot of thought after my run-in with the judicial system as
a witness to a criminal trial. I have some faith in the jury that lives
mostly outside of Boston, but I would be more nervous closer to the city.

My fear would be the DA and the liberal-biased judges in MA.

My thinking on a post-SD trial would be, use the 870, unmodified. If it
works on deer, it'll defend my family. If you pull the trigger once at
fairly close range, that should be all it takes.

[buzz_knox]

Actually, I've had this argument with Ayoob. At least in our conversation he came around to the point where he was accepting of mods that make a gun more controllable and help you get on target. But excessive lightening of a trigger, or tinkering with safeties, or anything that could be attacked as contributory negligence would be a no-no.

When did you have this conversation with Mas? I've read his stuff for over 10 years, and his point has always been consistent that modifications that make a weapon more effective in the owner's hands without compromising safety are absolutely fine.

This same issue has been rehashed time and again here and on TFL. Run a search and you'll find every argument for and against custom pistols, hand loads, etc. Nothing has changed in the meanwhile.

[Legionnaire]

When did you have this conversation with Mas? LFI-I, summer of 1998. At least in his class, his default position was that modifications should be minimal. I should have used the word "conversation" rather than "argument" in my earlier post. I unintentionally made it sound like Mas was against all modifications, which is not his position. Thanks for the catch.

[Jesse H]

It seems like we'd all be screwed.

"This man is known to be training all the time at the range to hone his killing skills!"

or

"This man rarely shoots, yet he carries a gun around. He's dangerous to society and ended up shooting my client!"

:p

[buzz_knox]

No problem. But I would differ a bit in Mas' default position being that mods should be minimal. Prior to '98, he wrote extensively about highly customized pistols that he owned and carried, even for defensive use (including a $2400 Morris custom job). The key to all of them, though, was that every modification was designed to promote usability and effectiveness without decreasing safety.

Here's my rule when it comes to modifications. Take a long look at what you want to do and why. Evaluate each modification based on whether it really will help you achieve the goal of surviving an encounter while reducing risk to the innocent, or whether it's just cool to have. Talk it over with a friend. If you can justify it to yourself on a risk/benefit basis, go for it and don't worry. But always be prepared to defend your choice should you be called to task for it.

[Old Fuff]

The point made about the difference between criminal vs. civil actions is important. In a criminal case they are after your butt. In a civil case they are after your money (or any other assets) and the rules of evidence are much looser. Things that wouldn’t be allowed in a criminal case would be in a civil one.

Shortly before the big changeover to pistols some of the major police departments in the country started having they’re revolvers modified to double-action only. Why? Because some of the bottom-feeding breed of lawyers were charging that officers had cocked their revolvers, and that as a result accidentally shot someone, when in fact the shooting had been deliberate, in the double-action mode and justified. What these lawyers hoped was that a brain-dead urban jury would buy this story and award the victim, or the victim’s survivors, a big judgment (most of which would go to the lawyers) for “wrongful death.” It worked well enough so, like I said, the police departments started modifying their guns, and even today some still buy double-action only autoloaders. What goes on in big-city courts may seem unbelieveable to some, but the truth is that it happens.

If you are faced with a case in a major city located in one of the Peoples’ Republics having a tricked-out gun may be a liability. It is also a sure thing that your gun will be confiscated, and even if you are acquitted getting it back will be a major (and expensive) hassle. I would much rather lose an ordinary stock gun then something with a lot of extra bucks in it. Certainly internal modifications not obviously effecting trigger pulls and disabling safeties are probably O.K. But the “appearance” of a custom gun might – just might – get you hung in some localities. Why take the chance?

[Steve Smith]

Mas (pi squared*paranoia)
------------------------------------ = Chicken Little
1.5

[buzz_knox]

Cute. But as an attorney who has seen a wrongful death case turn on the issue of whether a person used foul language or not, and who worked for someone who won a homicide trial because a juror publicly freaked when pulling a "hair trigger", I'll take a bit of paranoia over complacency any day.

[gun-fucious]

it seems to me:

"i was in fear for my life"

"i grabbed the first weapon available to defend myself"

should be all the explaination required

[buzz_knox]

I wish it worked that way. But always remember: it's not just that you are in fear of your life; it's also whether a reasonable person under those circumstances would have been in fear of his or her life.

[firestar]

I don't think that in a perfectly clean and just shooting any mods will count against you but what shooting is so clean cut? Lawyers deal in the gray area and nothing is as black and white to them as it may be to you. You may be 100% in the right but any lawyer worth his salt will find an angle to attack you with. All Ayoob is saying is, don't give them them any extra ammo to come at you with.

There are enough quality guns and ammo on the market that you are not really giving up much by just using them. The slight difference between high quality factory defence ammo and your home brew ammo is not worth the rish of being labled a gun nut in court.

BTW, yes I removed the mag safety on my hi power but I never intended to use that gun as a self defense weapon. It was just a range gun. My self defense guns are stock.

[Mute]

I think Ayoob's point has always been that if you do modify or customize your gun, make sure you are able and prepared to justify why you did so. I've never concluded, based on his articles, that you should never modify your weapons.

[Bobarino]

its tough to speculate what might happen in a civil or criminal trial. i have enough faith in myself that if i shoot someone in self defense, it will be justified and hopefully, no charges will even be file thus negating the criminal trial. if it does go to a criminal trial, i do not want any mods that make my gun easier to shoot. mainly because, i have interacted with the general public for work for the last 12 years and i have absolutely ZERO faith in the general public's ability to use or even posses common sense. those who say "hogwash" and such, think about the people you see and interact with on the street everyday. i'm not talking about your friends that you see all the time and that have a similar mindset as you. i'm talking about the general public. the soccer mom in line at the grocery store with her 7 kids that are making a mess out of someone else's store. the one with a Sierra Club bumper sticker on her SUV with dented front bumper that she parked on the curb in the no parking zone. the guy driving his 1974 Cadillac at 22 mph in the fast lane on the freeway that smokes so much you can't even see the car in front of you. they are your jurors. they will decide if you go to jail or not. if you think its "hogwash" then you have more faith in people than i do. this is a bit of a cynical, and pessimistic viewpoint but its more true than some might think.

i sometimes wonder why people are willing to put so much faith in the jury to to do he right thing and depend on others to protect them in court when choosing NOT to depend on others is likely a big factor in your decision to carry a gun in the first place.

civil trials are a whole other ballgame. if it happens to me, you can bet i'll be crying like a 6 year old school girl and trying to convince the jury that i have severe emotional scars from being victimized and forced to take another life. indignant remarks and "so? i shot him, he deserved it" will not be a part of my defense. that may work in Texas, but not in the greater Seattle area. your politcal environment should be a factor to consider when choosing what, how and when to carry. it sucks that those things even need to be considered. it shouldn't be that way. but it is. and not considering surrounding factors other than gun and holster choices is a little ignorant. please don't take that as an insult its not meant to be. just my opinions.

Bobby

[Standing Wolf]

Anybody who doesn't like my light triggers doesn't have to break into my house.

[firestar]

i have interacted with the general public for work for the last 12 years and i have absolutely ZERO faith in the general public's ability to use or even posses common sense.

It is sad but true. I am not even sure I would want a trial by jury. I probably would since I live in a conservative area but you never know.

[Preacherman]

Old Fuff, you make a good point - in fact, Seiden made his rep. as a self-defence lawyer on precisely that case, in Miami (against Janet Reno, no less, who was State A-G at the time :barf: ).

I've read as much as I can about this, and done three courses with Mas Ayoob, precisely because his ongoing legal work, with lawyers, prosecutors and judges, does indeed bear out the point that shyster lawyers will use anything and everything against you in a civil case in order to get their grubby paws on your hard-earned money. Heck, there are many documented cases where lawyers have contacted someone who was involved in a perfectly justifiable defensive shooting, and was no-billed by a Grand Jury, and told them that if they will only provide the name of their insurance company, there need be no nasty lawsuit over the "unfortunate accident" that left their client injured or dead. Their unspoken implication was that they'd make an outrageous claim against the insurer, who would then (all too often, unfortunately) offer to settle out of court for a much smaller sum, rather than face the cost of a trial, and that way the bottom-feeding lawyer and his client would split at least some money.

My carry guns are therefore totally standard, except for the addition of night sights and an action job, if necessary. There is nothing like a very light single-action trigger that a shyster can fasten upon as possible evidence of a negligent discharge (in fact, my carry revolvers have all been rendered DAO for this purpose - with a super-smooth action job by Clark Custom Guns, they really don't need to be cocked, anyway! :D ). I use Glocks and SIG's as carry pistols, as these are both in use by Federal law enforcement agencies as duty weapons, and load them with ammunition which is the same as that selected by the Feds for their agents. Any lawyer who wants to allege that I'm carrying an unsafe weapon, or using particularly brutal, nasty ammunition, will have to try to explain in court how national law enforcement agencies and individuals are guilty of the same charges... Somehow, I don't see the average jury buying their argument!

[Old Fuff]

Preacherman:

I think you have made some very intelligent choices. Everything you have, including the night-sights will pass muster because they are commonly used by law enforcement agencies. My pocket revolvers are either converted to double-action only, or are of the kind that has enclosed hammers. My larger ones are still “SA/DA” though, and I have arguments with myself over this. I may bite-the-bullet and convert a “K” frame S&W.

I can’t convert my single-action automatics. But the pattern is so common – particularly in the southwest - that I don’t think any lawyer could make anything of them. I avoid superfluous gadgets on general principals though.

I think many of our members on THR live in areas that are not controlled by rampant liberalism and thus may have little to worry about. But still, I see no reason for prudent people to leave themselves wide open. There are too many unprincipled legal sharks out there.

[Erik]

A ggod shoot is a good shoot is a good shoot.

Regardless of the weapon mods involved.

[duckfoot]

Would a stock gun make the bad guy any less dead, or a custom gun make a bad guy any more dead. Bad, DA "tricks are for kids."

[Matt1911]

A stock gun only aye?
"He used a Kimber,well know for being modified at the factory.."
Reguardless if the shoot was super duper clean,you'r gonna have problems,i would think.Here in Lake county Indiana,"you are guilty till proven otherwise,then we'll still get ya",yet just one county south,the attitude is 180 degrees.Best to go on your personal situation .

[English John]

some of us get touchy when we hear things we don't like. I have followed the man's writings for years. I don't remember him saying to NEVER make a modification to your handgun, just make safe mods. Civil court has different standards, if I remember correctly OJ beat the charges in criminal court but still payed in civil court. Do you really want to try and justify your hair-trigger "terminator" handgun with the "devestator" ammo to the jury of little old ladies described above, especially when the lawyers are looking for your blood and money? Remember they don't go to jail or pay if you lose, you do. Even if you WIN, how much will your lawyer charge you? We would all spend $50,000 to stay out of jail, but how many of us can quickly lay hands on that kind of cash? Now tell your kids- "no college". I think that all the man was saying was don't make your own pitfalls. I carried a badge for 8 years, had my GP-100 converted to DAO and it didn't hurt my scores. Switched to a M1911, had it "cleaned up" with no mods to the trigger, and qualified many times with it no problems. I still carry Win ST because that is what was ISSUED, if you don't like hollowpoints talk to the sheriff. Is it part of your mindset NOW before a shooting to justify your choice of gun and ammo? Can you verify your training and proficiency? Of course this is America and you can do any *&$#@ thing you like, but are you ready to justify your actions to a bunch of strangers in court? Yes it is "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6", but I think Ayoob writes about surviving the shooting AND the aftermath. YMMV Good luck. EJ

[10-Ring]

Most of my guns have remained stock. The few that have been modified have upgraded factory parts in them.

[blades67]

Mas Ayoob interviews Miami lawyer Mark Seiden


Because he preaches the same crap Aboob does. :rolleyes: :barf: