Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Defensive Carry & Self Defense' started by ATCclears, Jan 8, 2019.
I think she will like it I love the one I have for my shield
I used to have a Terminator backplate on mine, switched that over to "we the people" when I thought about how others might evaluate that. I figure "we the people" would at least give me the response of asking the lawyer to read our founding documents to try and gain the context. The pleasure of forcing them to read those documents would be good enough in my book for what comes next.
And I did not think about the trigger but I did put in another trigger... I also use it at the range and wanted a lighter trigger. I kept going back and forth with do I just want to use another gun for my range time but...
Using what you carry for practice means there won't be any surprises if I ever have to use it for self defense. And why use the cheaper stuff for your carry when you want it to be reliable.
If I was ever asked why I had an upgraded trigger in a carry gun I would respond “so that I could more accurately hit the person trying to kill me without endangering bystanders.”
I've wondered the same. Seems like an urban legend.
The only way I can see a modification being an issue in the legal system is if it hurt or endangered someone. Like a feather touch trigger that goes off unintentionally or some mod that blows the barrel up, etc. Perhaps not even then if otherwise justified.
But I'm not a judge or lawyer, even if I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.
More likely to be judged by the media on a slow news day.
Interesting topic, but IMO, much ado about nada.
Unless you have appendicitis. Might save a buck.
Neither violent or profane: "Is this going to be your last day?"
I heard of prosecutions of carriers for using 'out of norm' calibers like 10mm.
It's already in case law (somewhere) you can't make a deadly weapon more deadly, after all dead is dead. As for the rest, my right to express myself is constitutionally guaranteed.
That may be true as far as "deadly weapon" goes, I don't know. However using a gun with reloads or profane customizations in a DGU has caused needless trouble for carriers in the past.
Guns: Appearances Matter
"I would opine that perhaps, if Harold Fish had used a J-frame .38 special, and had fired once instead of three times with his 10mm Kimber, and if he didn’t have an expansive gun collection, he might never have been indicted by that grand jury."
Really Marty?...you can do better than that. I guess that means anyone that owns a few guns and gets into a shooting is at a legal disadvantage? Too much on the theory "What if", but next to nothing about the facts of the incident.
So if a firefighter has that firefighter back cover or whatever on his personal Glock, he'd get in trouble for that?
Somethin' ain't addin' up.
Yep, all the SJW's know that the Maltese cross is a Nazi symbol.
A bunch of useful idiots.
They needed better lawyers
having a "hair trigger" on a concealed is stupid anyways. Besides the law youre asking to get your own self in medical trouble with that imo.
Reading the incident story of Mr.Fish:
No, I do not believe it would have mattered if he had a J frame .38 vs. his 10mm.
Second, one shot from a snub .38 may not have been fatal, (or any other caliber, no flame) so the question is moot.
By prosecutor’s theory, he was a “gun nut” anyway, for owning multiple firearms. His 10mm didn’t really play a factor.
And, unless you use only use FMJ, we are all in trouble.
AZ changed the SD law as to burden of proof, perhaps because of this case.
Although it is “kind of” an example because at least the minutia issues were mentioned, I do not think it makes it applicable.
Grand jury is a strange animal and it was not used at trial.
Summary-appearance (of the weapon) didn’t matter.
I haven’t reviewed the details of the Harold Fish case but based on the article above the irrelevant information was discussed in grand jury testimony, not in trial. Grand juries do not decide guilt or innocence. The irrelevant information (gun nut inquisition) was apparently properly excluded from his trial. Grand jury indictments are not difficult to obtain because they are one sided events, run by a prosecutor. As the saying goes “you can indict a ham sandwich.”
I haven't read all of the replies so this may be redundant, but Massad Ayoob (for whom I have great respect) weighed in on the concept.
How Gun Decorations Can Send the Wrong Message to a Jury