Mark Seiden, now retired, was one of the very best lawyers I ever worked with in 46 years as an expert witness for the courts. A few years ago, he sat for an interview with Gila Hayes of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (armedcitizensnetwork.org). In the interview he speaks, from experience, about what are and are not acceptable modifications for defensive firearms.You’ll find that wisdom dispensed here.
An interesting interview. What fascinates me is how politically-corrupt prosecutors will stretch for anything that will allow them a conviction in those politically-charged cases.
I now carry a box-stock Sig C3, but one of my former 1911’s was a Springfield. It was the only one that I ever had a problem with; it left the factory with the feed ramp (in the frame) so badly polished that it looked like it hadn’t been touched. I called their (excellent) customer service, and they sent me a shipping label. That pistol had been fitted with a memory-bump grip safety, and since I have tiny hands I asked if they could change it to a smooth one, since they were going to have the pistol torn down for the ramp polishing. I offered to pay for the part and installation, and they said they’d send me a bill.
Got the pistol back with a mirror-smooth feed ramp and a regular grip safety, but no bill. I called them, and they told me not to worry about it, they changed it at no charge because the feed ramp issues was clearly on them. Super customer service.
I now wonder if changing from a memory/speed-bump grip safety to a regular smooth one could be brought up by a prosecutor for some bizarre reason. The other thing I regularly change are the grips on my 1911’s to better fit my (small) hands; I wonder if that’s something they could bring up.
I always carry factory-loaded 230-grain hollow-points, but my understanding is that as long as it’s factory ammo similar to what a police department would use that they have figured out it’s a losing cause to point to the ammo as “extra-deadly”, since it’s well known (or should be) that its intent is to limit over-penetration and to stop the threat with as few shots as possible. I’m hoping that is still true even in jurisdictions with criminally-corrupt prosecutors.
“…should be…” Yes. But the last time I checked, it’s still illegal in New Jersey for private citizens to carry hollow points.
… I should have written “publicly carry.” (At home, on private property, and certain shooting ranges, NJ allows them.)
Obviously it looks like a good idea not to use a kind of self defense round that a manufacturer has discontinued, especially if because of inconsistent hollow point jacket performance. Better to use those rounds for doing target practice, if at all, eh? DIY dumdums definitely appear too questionable.
As Blackwing said, an interesting interview, and fascinating to see what inane topics a prosecutor can spin to try and “prove” (really, just imply, if that) your intent and state of mind.
It’s not new, though; the Alvarez case* he mentions was from over 40 years ago, when police departments were still issuing revolvers. I’ve seen other cases in which modified guns/parts are used to try and show the defendants were “out to murder”, up to and including a dust cover on an AR-pattern rifle engraved with (IIRC) “Kill ’em all”. Engraving doesn’t affect the function of a gun one bit, so the gun isn’t any “deadlier”, but it became an issue for no other reason than because the prosecutor latched onto it and made it one.
For myself, I carry an unmodified, stock-standard pistol, loaded with JHP ammo from a major manufacturer. My thought for “making a gun easier to shoot” has long been, don’t modify a pistol; buy one that’s better for you out of the box, and then practice with it until handling and shooting it become second-nature. Humans have an enormous capacity for adaptation — instead of creating potential issues by modifying your sidearm, why not practice to become better with it as-is?
As I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that that’s not always practical for some folks, but even so, the firearms industry and market have created such a wide variety of products that there’s almost certainly something for every need, available from the factory, without significant modification. There’s very little need to modify a carry gun, so why not just leave it alone and forestall that line of thinking by an overzealous prosecutor?
As for ammo choice, the best advice I’ve ever heard still stands: Find out what your local police and/or Sheriff’s office issues and try to get that if possible, or something as close to it as you can. The prosecutor cannot imply you carry “deadlier” ammo without accusing his/her law enforcement colleagues of the same thing. (Then again, that could open up the “wannabe cop” line of thinking, but there’s only so much you can do.)
———
* – As an aside, it’s also mentioned that Alvarez and his recruit/trainee were patrolling “black neighborhoods” because the recruit reportedly had a fear of those areas. I wonder how this case — effectively proving that fear justified — affected the recruit and his/her police career.
Very good points by an experienced attorney as it is advisable to stack the odds in your favor. It is much easier these days to find a reliable factory stock self defense firearm that fits your hand, has a decent trigger and good sights than it was in the 70s and 80s.
Mas – thanks for the reminder about this very informative interview. If only all my students would heed these hard-won lessons and choose self-defense tools accordingly.
Do even highly experienced defense lawyers colloquially refer to self-defense laws as “stand your ground” laws? In his interview, Mr. Seiden made this statement – “Under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, it was pretty clear that Zimmerman was justified in his use of deadly force…” And later this one referring to the same trial: “It appeared to me to be a Stand Your Ground case…” I often hear the anti-gun press and other less educated commentators making those same references and think, “This person doesn’t have a good understanding of self-defense law.” That is obviously not the case with Mr. Seiden.
IIRC, you have always said, as does Andrew Branca, that “Stand Your Ground” laws only remove the duty to retreat in the face of an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. They do nothing to address the other issues required for justified self-defense. So why label a justified defensive use of a firearm as a SYG case? Has it become a shorthand of sorts, although a possibly confusing and counterproductive one?
Tom, Florida some years ago passed a package of pro-gun laws that encompassed removing the previous retreat requirement (thus, the Stand Your Ground element), a reinforcement of Castle Doctrine (one’s home is one’s castle, and attacked there they may use appropriate force), a tort reform element allowing a judge to throw out a lawsuit over a shooting the criminal justice system had ruled justifiable, and finally the element Mark was talking about, 776.032. 776.032 provides for a pre-trial hearing in which a judge determining the incident was self-defense can dismiss the case. Unfortunately, in Florida lawyer-speak the latter is called a “stand your ground hearing” for that reason, even though as in the Zimmerman case there may be no element of retreat requirement in the particular case at bar.
Got it, Thanks, Mas. NC passed similar legislation about ten years ago, where the occupant of the home, motor vehicle or place of work is presumed to be facing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm if an intruder is unlawfully attempting to enter or has already unlawfully entered those places. Also, a statute was passed that said in those places, a defender using deadly force is immune from criminal and civil liability. Since words mean things in the law, there is an effort to change the words ‘liability’ to
prosecution’ as it reads in FL.
Sad state of affairs when
“Oh, you wanted a lighter trigger pull so you could fire more shots within a short period of time?” or, “The factory trigger pull was too heavy to prevent you from firing as many shots in a few seconds as you wanted. Did you want to turn this weapon into a more deadly, efficient killing machine? Isn’t that why you made the modifications?”
is a ‘gotcha’ question.
I was in that cafe with the spree killer nutter I’d want the gunman who came to the rescue to have exactly that: The most deadly, efficient killing machine in existence!
njk
I’m old and retired. Spent 33 yrs as an LEO. As a result, I have experienced a diminishing tolerance for and patience with hubris, arrogance and reckless immaturity. I used to join in discussions on forums and social media groups, warning younger guys against customizing their carry guns in very inadvisable ways, such as “Smile Wait For Flash” on a muzzle crown, tribal tattoo or comic book “hero” symbols lasered on the frame or slide, making guns look like science fiction ‘blasters’ or video game ‘Duck Hunt’ guns, dressing them up ‘cartel style’ with bright golden or chrome levers and controls or even just putting ostentatious styling choices on their guns.
Since the late 90’s, when such subjects came up, I would patiently explain that juries can easily be comprised of people who have *never* handled a firearm in their life, maybe even don’t like firearms at all, and likely have an extremely warped understanding of firearms that comes from TV shows or movies. Also explained how trial lawyers are very adept at leveraging that lack of knowledge to manipulate the jury into feeling very strong emotions against the defendant.
Well, I got tired of being cussed at, called ever foul name in the book, a ‘Pelosi Lover’, a ‘Fudd’, a dinosaur that ‘didn’t get it’ and was ‘out of touch’. Not all young shooters responded that way, but enough did so that no longer feel the need to waste my time and endure pointless, childish abuse. Some folks simply want to be ‘right’ no matter the facts, or they just want to attack to stir up ‘engagement’ on the ‘Net to get attention, views or likes.
A good example of how quickly the know-it-all content creating pot stirrers work can be found in the I wave of stupid vides that reacted with attacks on Mas over a simple “Do’n’t Drop a Slide on an Empty Chambered 1911” video. The folks who disagreed couldn’t simply say, “Eh, maybe I disagree. I’ve done it before. Probably keep doing it. But whatever floats your boat.” No, they had to go full troll mode and like the leftists they claim they hate, they went on full throttle attack, attack, attack and even made it personal in some cases.
And just like the leftists, there’s little one can do with those who vigorously, strenuously and explosively react to all with which they disagree. They are fight looking for an excuse to go off. The reality is, all one can do is ignore them and refuse to engage.
I would hope some younger shooters who have the self-awareness to realize they don’t know it all, will take a few minutes and read that interview. It is filled with very good information.
“The prosecution had an expert witness who used to be a designer for Hi Standard come in and testify that the grips and the trigger job made it, and I am quoting, “A far more efficient and deadly killing machine with greater fire power.” I kid you not.”
I think it is safe for me to assume the prosecutor paid the designer for Hi Standard to say such falsehoods.
“Every single point was fought and tested. There was nothing genteel about either of those two trials. The prosecution pulled some nasty stuff. They put witnesses on who we were later able to prove were not even in the game room at the time of the shooting.”
Because of where I live, I am more afraid of my government’s criminal justice system than I am of criminals. I may prevail against a criminal. I will not prevail if the government wants to persecute me for being a bad victim. (A “good” victim submits. A “bad” victim resists). {Yes, I could move to a free state}.
I believe the best advise i received was carry the same ammo as local law enforcement carry.