[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

In all honesty, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but can you show me where a lawyer has been successful in "spinning" it?

I think the most important thing is to do what you have to and as long as you're in the clear about using deadly force, you won't have to face charges regardless of whether your gun has any modifications to it so long as the modifications are legal.

Thank you for alerting everyone to the existence of this part -- I'm sure there are a lot of people who might want to install it.

That said, as PAFOA's resident scumbag plaintiff-side civil lawyer (the resident scumbag criminal defense realm is clearly the purview of my friend gunlawyer) I can't caution you strongly enough against utilizing this part in a carry gun, for several reasons.

First, you state that:

It replaces the factory safety lever and removes the majority of the take up and shortens the reset.

Removing take-up (or slack, or pre-travel, or whatever you want to call it) from a factory trigger can easily form the predicate for an argument in a civil case that you limited the function of a factory safety device. Factory triggers come with take-up because it decreases the probability of an unintended discharge. If you shoot someone, right or wrong, intentional or not, you will be sued. And the modification will be one of many factors thrown at the wall by the plaintiff's lawyer when he tries to show that (i) you were negligent or reckless in shooting the guy (if you're insured) or (ii) you were a Rambo that wanted to make your gun faster (and deadlier) to deploy so that you could intentionally shoot someone (if you don't have insurance).

I can tell you this, with absolute ironclad certainty: The judge will allow him to make the argument, he'll be allowed to present the evidence to the jury and to question you on it, and it'll look like shit to the non-gunnies on the jury. And trust me, there will be no gunnies on the jury -- the plaintiff's lawyer will guarantee that.

You can poo-poo the issue if you like. It's your gun, there are a ton of plaintiff's lawyers, and we all have to eat. But I'm telling you, from the perspective of a plaintiff's lawyer -- they drool and smile when they hear about this sort of modification.

Second, you state that:

I think the most important thing is to do what you have to and as long as you're in the clear about using deadly force, you won't have to face charges regardless of whether your gun has any modifications to it so long as the modifications are legal.

Your position contains a few dangerous assumptions: that it was a good shoot, that you draw a detective and ADA who are gun savvy, that you draw a detective and ADA that aren't anti-gun or looking for a belt notch, and that you're absolutely, positively, by every objective measure in the right about what you did.

Nobody can ever guarantee all of the above. You don't get out of a manslaughter case because you volunteer that you intended to shoot him. Unless your lips are sewn together, you'll give them one fragment on which to predicate a manslaughter case if they want it. "I'm sorry he's dead." "I didn't want to kill him, but he made me." "I feel horrible." All these sorts of statements, which any rational and kind human being would be perfectly justified in using post-shooting could form the basis for a criminal case with a negligent/reckless standard.

Modding your gun to eliminate take-up is, again, just one more little piece of the overall puzzle they'll have to assemble against you. Don't make it easier for them.

Finally, reported cases on the issue are far and few between because (i) state court judges don't like to write opinions (and these cases are almost always state matters); (ii) motions in limine rarely draw written opinions in any case; and (iii) the jury doesn't write an opinion on why they reached their conclusion -- they just render a decision. Given that (iii) is where 95% of these types of cases are going to be decided (because they judge will allow the evidence and let the jury worry about it) you're not going to see a written opinion. And I'm telling you -- no plaintiff's attorney in his right mind is going to let the opportunity to introduce evidence that you made your gun easier to fire slip away.

I've talked to Mas Ayoob about this issue before (and he's written widely on it, and repeatedly in the gun rags as well as his books) -- eliminating take-up is a bad, bad idea if there is a chance you could get sued.