Proof of gun modifications used in court (found one!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
To me, the whole gun modification thing comes down to remembering we have two court systems for this type of thing. It _probably_ won't matter what you did to the gun in criminal court. The standard is high there. BUT I sure as heck could see it making a difference in civil court. If the jury is trying to decide between a $5000 award and a $50,000 one, the fact that you "purposefully disconnected the safety device on your Browning Hi Power" COULD push them to decide on the higher amount.

Gregg
 
IMHO, the "Ayoob" issue is based on Civil Court as much as anything else.

My own view is that many mods can be easily explained as ways of making the gun more reliable, and more accurate, which increases safety.

Where you get into trouble is when "safety devices" (maybe a 1911's grip safety) are removed.

Juries are often composed of people who didn't have the pull to get out of jury duty....

I doubt if you'll find any criminal cases where modifications figured prominently, although something like the case that started this thread might be more likely where a claim of an AD might be important.

I had a situation (on the range, fortunately) where I was demonstrating some Super Vel .357's (remember those?) for a class, and for some reason left my .357 at home, and had to use a buddy's. NBD, except he'd had it worked over and there was no single-action anymore. In so far as I didn't want to look too silly, I tried to cock the thing.... Fortunately, I'd been there before, and managed to get the hammer down safely. :eek:

IAC, I think the real risk is where the BG's family choose to make his untimely death (or serious injury) into a Lottery win, and your mods sound dangerous....

Regards,
 
Random thought: Double Action revolvers do have a "safety mechanism" built in.
Click to expand...
Actually, doesn't a .38 S&W have a drop safety system? You know...keeps the hammer from setting off a round if the hammer is hit hard? Or did I just dream that up? (been a while since I took one apart...)
 
they' ve got the rebounding hammer, and the post-1944 hammer block mech (SV-prefix serials and later)
 
no matter how hard she had to pull the trigger, she still pulled the trigger....
Click to expand...

Bingo. WTH was her finger doing on the trigger if she did not intend to fire the gun????? Unless the hammer fell as soon as she let go of the spur with her finger off the trigger, it was intentional.

Also, they claimed the gun had been stolen, altered, and then recovered and returned. So what they are saying is that this woman had not fired this gun or had it inspected by a gunsmith since it had been returned after being stolen?!?! For all she knew there was a crack rock lodged in the barrel. What a Moron
 
Lone gunman...

I stand corrected..
After reading your statement, I did some more research. You are correct.
Smith and Wesson did make the "lemon squeezer" series of revolvers that had a grip saftey of sorts.

However, in my research, I didn't find any indication that that series was made in a 2 inch barrel, as stated in the case.
(The 2" barrel is what I drew the conclusion from that this was a run of the mill J-fram)

Do you have any info that the lemon squeezers were made in a 2" barrel?

Thanks for the input.
That's one of the things I like about this site, there's always something new to learn.

In conclusion: there's nothing to see here. The search for a court case is still ongoing.
 
First thing first. I would base my guess that the LA police weapons specialist knew what he was doing. hate to say that, but have a hard time believing otherwise. therefore i would say that the reporter tried to report the ideas presented as best he/she heard them. We all read stories in the paper about "automatic side by sides" and 38 caliber beretta's and 44 cal lugers, so let us use that as a guide that the news service fact checker took the day off.

second. The safety issue would be more than likely one about a transfer bar or some such.

As for excoriating her as being a moron, she has to live in an area where women carry as a matter of course. having had her self defense means stolen she was thrilled to have it back and decided to carry immediately. if you get a stolen car back from the police are you going to have your machanic look it over, or are you going to drive it and try it.
 
Grip safety. The original Centennial hammerless design had it. It was commonly called the "lemon squeezer".

On a new Centennial the back of the grip frame would be flush with the back of the grip. The metal you are seeing behind the wood on this earlier example is a grip safety that had to be squeezed in by the palm of the hand to enable the trigger to be pulled.

I assume it could be pinned like a 1911 which would technically constitute removing or disabling the safety.
 
My understanding is that the "Lemon Squeezer" grip safety was great for families with kids, but stiff enough to make even an adult have problems shooting the thing accurately.

Which is why they disappeared.

The Police specialist could also have been referring to the "rebound" safety, but I wonder what failure mode is possible that will allow the gun to fire. The one in my old Charter "Undercover" almost has to fail "safe". I need to go dig out an S&W and see what they're doing - wth, I've only owned two of them for 35 years....

I love it when the news media reports "High Powered Assault Rifle" and it turns out to be a .22 Pistol....

Regards,
 
If it was simply a pinned grip safety that was part of the "bungled modifications" it makes me wonder how "bungled" they really were.

It could have been a standard trigger job and a safety pin. Just cause the expert witness is a police ballistician doesn't mean he knows _-all about gunsmithing, older guns, or what constitutes normal tuning among aficianados.

If he was selected by the defense (as his support of their position might imply) he could simply be setting himself up for a future EW career by fudging his analysis a little their way without going so far as to lie. After all, modern S&W revo triggers are on the whole heavier and creepier than the earlier models. To compare the new production standard trigger weight and pull to a polished older model is dang near apples and oranges.

So say this "hair trigger" Smith actually just had a smoothed, maybe lightened to 2 lb., crisp single action break and a pinned grip safety as was common. That's hardly an "unsafe" modification, just an easier shooter.
 
This is an example of the complete opposite of what Ayoob argues... This is an example of a BAD shoot that was negated by modifications to the gun. As it was argued that the shooter didn't know that the mods had been performed...

VERY screwy...

On the Ayoob arguments... His advice generally is good if you don't want to leave yourself open for creative lawyer attack. Such as the use of a stock gun and the use of commercial self defense loads. He never said that if you use reloads or a modified gun that you'll go to jail... But it is one less thing that you have to defend...

It is my opinion that I'd like to defend as few of my actions as possible... YMMV
 
Such as the use of a stock gun and the use of commercial self defense loads. He never said that if you use reloads or a modified gun that you'll go to jail... But it is one less thing that you have to defend...

It is my opinion that I'd like to defend as few of my actions as possible... YMMV
Click to expand...


Sound advice.

I discount much of what Ayoob writes, and he probably has sensationalized this issue somewhat, but I've testified in court enough times, both criminal and civil, to know that attorneys try to attack anything. And a jury of 12 licensed drivers may not have as much common sense as you'd like them to have.....


Don't know why this whips up such a frenzy in some folks! If you want to carry your $3000 1911, with the 2 lb trigger, no grip safety, and home brewed Mankiller bullets, go for it! You'll probably never have to defend your actions....
 
IMHO and IANAL, anything you can do to improve Safety or Control will probably pass muster unless you get a Civil Jury composed of idiots and your lawyer is incompentent.

That covers sights, grips, and trigger jobs that don't appreciably alter the guns original pull weight. You might even get away with moving a gun from 10# to 5#, too, but I'd call 4-5# the bottom if the factory doesn't offer less.

Again, the real issue with these mods is probably Civil Court, not Criminal. The Criminal side is a whole 'nother can of worms, where you can get nailed for things like pursuing a subject into the street, but it's doubtful that a better trigger would attract much attention, in the absence of statements to the contrary by the defendant. The Mantra must be "safety and control"....

We prefer "Castle Doctrine" be the way to go here, but in many states, that's not the case right now....

Regards,
 
Hunter Rose:

IMHO, there are two sides to the "don't carry reloads" argument.

The first one is simple - "do you really trust yourself or your supplier to make reloads that will be 100% reliable?" I trust a buddy of mine - he likes to double-weigh stuff done with his progressive reloader - but there still are primer issues. Overall, I think this is paranoia, but at least you may be able to sue Remington or Federal, while "Fred" down the block is another story.

The other side is probably what Ayoob & folks like him are going for. "Did you reload something really off-the-wall that makes you look bloodthirsty, evil, etc.?" Remember the flack over the "Black Talon" rounds? Sounded too much like "Black Felon" to pass PC muster, and while you can still get them (I'm told), that's not the name anymore.... Again, a Civil Court issue, unless you really go off the deep end with something real that a Prosecutor can use.

Regards,
 
Defendant picked up a stool from behind the counter and threw it at Latasha, but it did not hit her.

After throwing the stool, defendant reached under the counter, pulled out a holstered .38-caliber revolver, and, with some difficulty, removed the gun from the holster. As defendant was removing the gun from the holster, Latasha picked up the orange juice and put it back on the counter, but defendant knocked it away. As Latasha turned to leave defendant shot her in the back of the head from a distance of approximately three feet, killing her instantly. Latasha had $2 in her hand when she died.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those hair triggers. They make the gun come out from behind the counter, unholster, point itself at the fleeing person's head, pull the hammer back, and pull the trigger. Somebody could get hurt. There oughta be a law! :rolleyes:
 
My understanding is that the "Lemon Squeezer" grip safety was great for families with kids, but stiff enough to make even an adult have problems shooting the thing accurately.
Click to expand...

I fired a "lemon squeezer" 2" .38 a few years ago. Had no trouble with the safety, did not notice any difference between it and the new model Centenial .38 without the safety.

NukemJim
 
Just for the record.....

The quote about the revolver being turned into an "automatic weapon with a hairpin trigger" was some judge's ignorant characterization of the weapon, not part of the report of the firearms expert.

S&W revolvers do, indeed, have safties -- an internal part that slides up between the hammer and the frame so that unless the trigger is pulled, even if the hammer drops, the weapon won't discharge. It is easily removed by taking the side plate off of the revolver. If someone (presumably the thief, in this instance) removed the sideplate and stoned the sear until it became a "hair trigger", it isn't difficult to imagine their failing to replace the safety lever when they reassembled the weapon. Actually, come to think of it, that would almost turn it into an "automatic weapon" as the judge described, because you could partially thumb back (or "fan") the hammer, and as long as the cylinder revolved enough to bring the next chamber into battery, the gun would fire when the hammer dropped, whether the trigger was engaged or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Real World Shooting - What is the proper outcome?
Replies
21
Views
785
Rockstar
R
D
  • Locked
Appeals court tosses defaced gun law
Replies
14
Views
1K
TallPine
T
S
  • Locked
Sierra Times: 92 Cases Reveal Court's Outlook on Guns
Replies
0
Views
552
shooterx10
S
D
  • Locked
92 Cases Reveal Court's Outlook on Guns
Replies
0
Views
693
Desertdog
D
D
  • Locked
High Court Considering Police Searches (He said NO, She said YES. They searched.)
Replies
15
Views
922
kirkcdl
K
Back
Top