legit advice on modifications?

[Earlymonk]

Just completed an 8-hour state-mandated CCH class yesterday.

Not sure what to make of this exchange (when I explained my plans to modify the PX4 from F to G):

Instructor: Oh, I wouldn't do that. I've been an expert witness in multiple cases. If you are involved in a shooting, and it's determined that you did anything to make your gun 'less safe,' that will be bad.
Me: What if the modifications result in a configuration that's already offered by the manufacturer?
Instructor: Well, maybe if you had a gunsmith do it...

I feel like I've seen @Mas write about things like this, but the specific F->G mod in Berettas seems to be in a different boat.

I wonder, for instance, if it would be more "legally defensible" to 1) use the G stealth levers conversion kit vs. 2) just removing the spring and detent from the stock levers? Even though they accomplish the same thing, the latter is REMOVING a factory part and the former is INSTALLING a factory part (though, granted, one with fewer parts).

What say you, P-F wise ones?

[SecondsCount]

If the bad guy deserves to be shot, I really don't see how a gun modification matters.

An instructor should always give instruction that works well for the masses. They have no idea of your level of experience or training when it comes to shooting or working on a firearm.

[45dotACP]

A well known defensive trainer (Ernest Langdon) modifies his guns as such. You're probably good.

The consensus seems to be that if you have an easily articulated reason for modifying your gun, you're probably alright.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Artemas2]

Can you articulate why you did "X" and preferable only use quality stuff. The political leanings of your most frequented area can also be a factor
Somewhere on PF is a good thread about modified guns. Mas and a few other guys laid out some good stuff. Trying to find it, but as it turns out this is a popular topic!

Below is some opinions from other well known instructors, though I do not believe they has Mas's legal experience.
http://overwatchprecision.com/blog/a...-the-glock-17/

http://www.breachbangclear.com/a-cri...-trigger-pull/

[Qaz98]

What @Mas talks about isn't whether your or right or wrong, but how much money and time are you willing to spend on the issue. If you use a stock gun, then all attention is spent on the shooting. If you made any modifications, then the DA may sidetrack the jury with how you made the gun less safe, more shootable, or other claims we know to be false, but not the jury. So that is just more hours of attorney fees for them to explain, hire an expert witness, etc.

As for diy modifications that the manufacturer offers... Again, you'll probably be fine, but again, just another opportunity for the DA to attack you. I'm not saying it's right. Its just the legal system.

I have zero qualifications, but basically summarizing what I've read from acldn, Mas, and Andrew Branca.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[karam.19]

Just completed an 8-hour state-mandated CCH class yesterday.

Not sure what to make of this exchange (when I explained my plans to modify the PX4 from F to G):

Instructor: Oh, I wouldn't do that. I've been an expert witness in multiple cases. If you are involved in a shooting, and it's determined that you did anything to make your gun 'less safe,' that will be bad.
Me: What if the modifications result in a configuration that's already offered by the manufacturer?
Instructor: Well, maybe if you had a gunsmith do it...

I feel like I've seen @Mas write about things like this, but the specific F->G mod in Berettas seems to be in a different boat.

I wonder, for instance, if it would be more "legally defensible" to 1) use the G stealth levers conversion kit vs. 2) just removing the spring and detent from the stock levers? Even though they accomplish the same thing, the latter is REMOVING a factory part and the former is INSTALLING a factory part (though, granted, one with fewer parts).

What say you, P-F wise ones?

As an attorney, I am always skeptical of what an “expert” witness has to say on the impact of the case with a specific fact. There is a lot that goes on that witness are not aware because of what is called separation of witnesses. There may have been motions in limine, specific jury instructions given or other witnesses that may testify on the matter. If I was litigating the case, I would put the focus not on any modification of the weapon used for self defense, but rather the sole question of whether the affirmative defense of self-defense was warranted, i.e. was the defendant fearful of imminent substantial harm or death? Once you’ve proven that aspect, then you are justified in using deadly force. There is not a caveat to that in terms of deadly force in the safest manner possible. You could use a hatchet, stick, sling shot or a g-configuration PX4. Deadly force is very much a two sided coin. Either it is or it isn’t. There is a question about using that force which is necessary to repel the attack, but that pertains to the duration of the self-defense and not the initiation. So, the safety is immaterial. Moreover, if the prosecutor wishes to make hay with modifications to show a question of intent, you can bet that I would make multiple objections as to relevancy and the prejudicial value of that information given the sole question of whether deadly force was justified. Also, if information pertaining to modification would be permitted, I would put my own expert on to say that having a G model makes it safer to law abiding citizens and having an F model may have resulted in your own death as opposed to the perpetrator. This is just my two cents. I just get a little annoyed when “expert” witnesses think they are experts on the law, as opposed to the subject matter they testify about. They should keep watching people’s court and stay in their lane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

There is a lengthy thread on the topic of modifications here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....light=punisher

While I realize there's a lot to wade through and not all addresses your specific concern, there's plenty of real world feedback from folks with experience in how criminal and civil cases work. It's worth the read.

[Earlymonk]

It's worth the read.

Certainly is! Thanks.

Among the gems is this link:
http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=6896

[Earlymonk]

And these:

...MAG40 (and MAG20 classroom) is chock full of Lessons Learned from defense shootings, and when Mas says "the only modifications to your gun should be intended to make it more accurate and reliable without compromising safety; any cosmetic mods should be carefully considered" I believe him.

You can set things up so that you are able to present the best picture of yourself possible.

...

Equipment – Got a reason for that modification? Does it help sell your case? What does it do for you?

Does it make you shoot faster…or increase your visual feedback allowing you more information & time to process it so you can make a better decision?
Does anything you do to your gun make top people in the field look at you as if to say, “Huh…wut?”

Reasonable people can disagree.
Reasonable people WILL disagree on a lot of things, but if a consensus of experts would look at something, then say, “I wouldn’t do that shit if I was you…”

Well.

...If experts look at something you did to that gun saying “Nah, dawg! You roll that way…I’m gonna not go with you…” (Backing away SLOWLY from the nutball…) you probably shouldn’t do it.

...

Generally speaking (I hate that term…) if you have to sell something hard, it is shit.

[Mas]

The gun modification issue can come up in various ways. A prosecutor bringing an unmeritorious case for political reasons might find a Manslaughter charge (recklessness/negligence being key elements) easier to sustain with a jury than a Murder charge, in which they would have to prove the element of malice to satisfy the mens rea element. A classic example is Florida v. Luis Alvarez, when the prosecution's theory of the case under then-Dade County States Attorney Janet Reno was that the officer had negligently cocked the hammer of a revolver which had had a few coils removed from the trigger return spring, leading to the negligent death of the "victim" in question. A defense team led by Roy Black and Mark Seiden eventually convinced the jury of the truth: the officer had deliberately and intentionally fired a single shot, double action, when the decedent reached for a loaded revolver with the obvious intent of killing Alvarez and his young partner. Between the shooting and the trial, Miami PD had all service revolvers converted to double action only, as LAPD had done a decade or more earlier for similar reasons. It took eight or nine weeks of trial to win the acquittal, a defense that might have cost over a million dollars today, as the seven-week George Zimmerman trial did in 2013. Miami PD adopted the Glock only after ATF had ruled it to be double action only.

On the civil side, recklessness and negligence tend to be what the plaintiffs want to establish. They know that self-defense is a perfect defense, but also a defense reserved for intentional acts. If their theory of the case is that the officer or armed citizen used a weapon modified with what they will call a "hair trigger," and they allege that the shot was fired unintentionally, they have their "hook" on which to hang their BS case. A trigger pull lighter than factory recommendation for a duty gun gives them that hook. In modern striker-fired pistols, look up Santibanes v. Tomball, TX (Glock 21 with 3.5/4.5 lb OEM Glock connector) and Galmon v. Phebus (Louisiana, Travis Haley Skimmer trigger in Glock 35). Both were high-stress unintentional discharges, victim-precipitated, and essentially ruled excusable by the criminal justice system, but resulting in substantial out of court settlements in subsequent civil litigation.

The shorthand answer with lightened or shortened trigger pulls is "Good news: they're easier to shoot. Bad news: they're easier to shoot." Opposing counsel will argue that the gun was negligently made too easy to fire unintentionally. My experience has been that if it's a duty/self-defense weapon (as opposed to a designated target pistol) with the factory's duty spec trigger pull weight or greater, this is unlikely to be an issue. (Note that Glock's policy with the Tactical/Practical G34, 35, 40, and 41 pistols is that they are listed under Sport in their catalog, not LE or Self Defense, and when shipped to police departments leave the factory with 5.5 pound triggers at a minimum.)

Removing a safety device from a lethal weapon is an easy sell for a plaintiff's lawyer trying to convince a jury that a defendant has a reckless disregard of safety issues. Mark Seiden recently discussed one such case at length in the ACLDN Journal. (armedcitizensnetwork.org)

Rambo-esque names or decorations on guns are obvious "lawyer bait." The "You're Fucked" logo on the dust cover of the involved officer's AR15 in Arizona v. Phillip Brailsford led to the officer's firing and appears to have played a part in Mesa PD's decision to fire the officer. Yes, he was acquitted and yes, the dust cover was kept out of the trial thanks to a successful motion in limine by defense attorney Michael Piccarreta. However, Piccarreta told me that it took at least ten hours of just his time to craft and argue that motion, which could just as easily have gone the other way. Manny Kapelsohn, the expert witness for the defense in that case, is also an attorney. He was on the Panel of Experts on Firearms/Deadly Force Training that I ran at ILEETA last month in St. Louis, and he told the audience that he estimated total cost of that successful motion to keep out the dust cover was probably in the area of $15-$20,000. Brailsford was acquitted, but will probably be unemployable in his chosen career henceforth.

In conclusion, I respectfully recommend (1) Trigger pull in keeping with the gun manufacturer's minimum or greater duty spec; (2) If you don't like a particular safety device, buy a gun that doesn't have it to begin with; and (3) avoid Rambo-esque names and decor.