Powder River Precision XD Striker Safety Lever

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by Kaos

Ive seen the video, even before the thread was started.

A jury isnt going to care though...it's a mod one way or another, lawyers will spin it how they will.

Im not disputing that it works well, but for a carry gun i wouldnt do it myself, but that's just my opinion.

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.

[Hoootie]

All I have to say is I really hope a modification like this wouldn't have any legal consequences. I don't understand how you can get into any trouble for defending yourself with a legally modified gun. If you accidentally shot someone I suppose they could use this against you, but if your intent was to shoot a person to save your own life, I don't see why this would matter. Next we will convicting people because they defended themselves with bullets that they loaded themselves.

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by Hoootie

All I have to say is I really hope a modification like this wouldn't have any legal consequences. I don't understand how you can get into any trouble for defending yourself with a legally modified gun. If you accidentally shot someone I suppose they could use this against you, but if your intent was to shoot a person to save your own life, I don't see why this would matter. Next we will convicting people because they defended themselves with bullets that they loaded themselves.

It's already highly recommended to not use reloads for self defense. I don't want to turn this into a debate about a modified gun and the possibility of a lawsuit. I just wanted to post a review about a part that was a piece of cake to install, it worked flawlessly and is impressive in the job it performs.

The XD is becoming a popular choice for gun games and the factory trigger pull, while decent for a carry gun, definitely could be improved



Another thing I noticed about this part, because the take up is eliminated, the trigger breaks without being pulled so far back in the trigger guard. This is another benefit for me as the factory trigger pull finishes with the trigger almost all the way to the "back" of the trigger guard.

[Skullz]

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.

While I haven't spent the time trying to find an example, I will say that you are probably correct in terms of a criminal conviction. However, don't discount the likelyhood that a civil suit will follow and THAT is where a lawyer will be able to successfully spin a modified firearm.

Skullz

If you haven't already read them - Ayoob's "In The Gravest Extreme" points out the modification issue, as does Kenik's "Armed Response.

[Skullz]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

Another thing I noticed about this part, because the take up is eliminated, the trigger breaks without being pulled so far back in the trigger guard. This is another benefit for me as the factory trigger pull finishes with the trigger almost all the way to the "back" of the trigger guard.

I appreciate your report on this modification and understand not wanting to turn this into a debate.

I think it's important to realize that reducing the take up and especially shortening the reset in a carry gun can be dangerous. Thats the reason why SA does NOT shorten the reset on when they provide their "Carry Option" package.

I had the carry package done on my XD9SC and highly recommend it. The combat action job and night sights are worth the price. I don't know if the adjustable overtravel is worth it or not. Although, I tend to agree with you the the trigger brake being so far back is annoying, again I think it's beneficial for a carry gun - adrenaline and reduced fine motor control during BAR contribute to NDs.

Personally, any gun that I carry will (if needed) only be modified by the manufacturer. My sporting and competition guns are usually done by EGW... and I'm sure it's obvious, but any of those guns would be downright dangerous for a carry weapon.

Skullz

[jtkratzer]

The nice part about this part is that should I choose to take it out, I still have the stock parts and I can go back to "factory settings."

[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.

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

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:

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:

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.

As much as I appreciate your information, I don't take what every author writes on self defense shooting as complete truth as Ayoob also highly recommends against the use of a single action firearm like a 1911 and other controversial issues. There is an opinion to all of this stuff and the fact is, my gun doesn't come out unless it's a life or death situation for me or my wife. If a lawyer wants to examine my gun and make false claims that I've eliminated a safety, I will gladly prove him wrong. The issue in a shooting is whether or not charges are filed in the first place. If they're not, and the majority of self-defense shootings I see where the person acting in self defense does things "right," charges aren't filed. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of a lawsuit. I also do the best I can to avoid trouble in all senses of the word and I'm hoping as much as every other person who isn't a "scumbag" lawyer dealing for the criminal/his family that we see the Castle Doctrine law pass and go into effect in PA preventing being sued in a self defense shooting where charges aren't filed.

A modified gun is a modified gun regardless of who does the work as long as the safeties and functions of the gun are intact and function properly. Getting a combat job done by Springfield or a trigger job done by Canyon Creek or Springer Precision or doing it myself is still a trigger job. Getting a trigger job on any carry gun, whether it's a 1911, a Sig, a Glock, a whatever is still a modified gun.

I'm not a lawyer and I am making assumptions that I will do what's right if that time comes where I have to pull the trigger to save my life. The catch 22 of what you're telling me about "slipped" comment is that to avoid charges, I have to fear for my life or grave bodily injury and I wanted to stop the threat, but if I say that, you're telling me that it's basically bait for a lawsuit. My intentions in self defense will never be to kill anyone, only to stop the threat. If the offender dies, that's his problem as he shouldn't have been trying to harm/kill me in the first place. This is why you see surviving criminals face homicide charges for the deaths of their accomplices who are killed by someone acting in self defense.

As much as I respect your "authority" on the subject, until someone can show me a significant number of cases where lawsuits were successful by the criminal/his family, I'm more than comfortable carrying a gun with a trigger job. I refuse to allow scumbag lawyers, their defense of the guilty party, and the idea that criminals need to have more rights protecting them than those who obey the law and are forced to act in self defense by the criminals affect how I live my life. Not only is it my right and I chose to do so because I have the right, but additionally, the actions of criminals is one more reason I have chosen to carry a firearm. It's issues like this that are just crazy in my mind. Every self defense trainer out there trains his/her students to shoot to stop the threat. Unfortunately for the criminal, the best way to stop a threat is to interrupt the central nervous system or cause a severe enough drop in blood pressure that the body begins to shut down by targeting the cardiovascular system. The issue that's unfortunate is that causing a drop in blood pressure through the cardiovascular system often leads to death. Targeting the central nervous system leads to paralysis and/or death. That's the nature of using a firearm in self defense. If stun guns and tasers were effective, we'd all be using them. If pepper spray was effective, we'd all be using that. Unfortunately, they're not effective enough all of the time. So, again, it's the criminal actions of others that force us to act in self defense, not our desire to wound, maim, injury, or kill anyone at all.

If you have any sense of moral fiber in your body, and maybe I'm out of line for saying this, perhaps you should consider a new profession, or at least represent those on the right side of the law. I'm not saying all self defense shootings are necessary, but there is a fine line to draw where the person acting in self defense was doing so for a reason. The majority of law abiding citizens don't stick guns in the faces or random people or shoot people they don't feel threatened by.

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

If you have any sense of moral fiber in your body, and maybe I'm out of line for saying this, perhaps you should consider a new profession, or at least represent those on the right side of the law.

Kind of a broad statement to make, given that you don't know my current practice area, do ya? (Hint: think plaintiff-side in Enron). I've never sued anyone who didn't have it coming -- the "scumbag" language was a bit of a joke on my part.

I appreciate your sentiments and position, and it's a free country. If you want to carry a gun with minimal take-up installed by or at the direction of the end-user, go for it.

I'm just telling you (i) that I know what's admissible and what isn't; and (ii) how a talented lawyer could easily use your decision to carry such a weapon against you.

I think I've pretty much explained why you're not going to find a lot of case law on the issue -- and I'm not going to spend the $ on Lexis to prove it to you. If the opinion of a plaintiff's lawyer isn't enough to change your mind, when you've admitted that you have no personal basis for your opinion (and presumably you've never tried a civil case) other than the absence of published case law, I can't see how I can convince you.

So all I can do is wish you the best of luck, and tell you to enjoy your gun.

Cheers.

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

Kind of a broad statement to make, given that you don't know my current practice area, do ya? (Hint: think plaintiff-side in Enron). I've never sued anyone who didn't have it coming -- the "scumbag" language was a bit of a joke on my part.

I appreciate your sentiments and position, and it's a free country. If you want to carry a gun with minimal take-up installed by or at the direction of the end-user, go for it.

I'm just telling you (i) that I know what's admissible and what isn't; and (ii) how a talented lawyer could easily use your decision to carry such a weapon against you.

I think I've pretty much explained why you're not going to find a lot of case law on the issue -- and I'm not going to spend the $ on Lexis to prove it to you. If the opinion of a plaintiff's lawyer isn't enough to change your mind, when you've admitted that you have no personal basis for your opinion (and presumably you've never tried a civil case) other than the absence of published case law, I can't see how I can convince you.

So all I can do is wish you the best of luck, and tell you to enjoy your gun.

Cheers.

That's why I said without knowing the details of what you actually do and my comments were based on if you would represent anyone no matter what with their lawsuit "because you have to eat." If I was a lawyer, representing people who are guilty and trying to get them out of what they've done or lesson their sentences is the top reason why I'd never want to be a public defender or defend someone who is guilty. I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor going after someone who is innocent either...our justice/legal system is a mess and I'm glad I'm not a part of it in any way.

I appreciate where you're coming from, but at the same time, I find it hard to believe that my aftermarket striker safety lever would be sole item responsible for my damnation in court as long as everything else is in the clear. I find it hard to believe because otherwise, we'd see a flourishing area of the news/press/media covering winning lawsuits filled by "victims" of gun owners.

With a crime being stopped by a firearm every 13 seconds on average, you'd think of the 2.5 million crimes stopped by firearms every year, we'd see more lawsuits won by the person shot or otherwise deterred by the use of those firearms by the person acting in self defense.

I am very much looking forward to the passing of the Castle Doctrine in PA to alleviate any fear of a civil suit by the criminal or his/her family in the event of a shooting. I'm tired of the way our system works to provide a paycheck for the family of the criminal injured or killed during the commission of a crime.

The majority of self defense shootings that are legit and legal go without charges being filed. We happen to live in a state that isn't run by anti-gun nazis who jump at every opportunity to make an example of someone who uses a firearm in a righteous act of self defense against an assailant. It's not that I don't respect your experience or knowledge, I just can't see how it's that much of an issue when we don't see the lawsuits being won left and right by people who are shot in self defense. If charges were filed based on the gun being modified and we saw more lawsuits won, I'd be concerned. Anyone can file a lawsuit...whether or not it goes through its paces is another story.