Stock Guns ONLY for Self Defense?

[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!

 

[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. 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?



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.





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!

 

[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 itâ€, 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!"

 

[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