Legal Issues with Kel Tec PF9 Trigger Upgrade ?

[Terminatorret]

I replaced the OEM plastic triggers with Northwood triggers on both my PF9's and was very happy with the conversion. The Northwood improved both my shooting comfort and my accuracy.

[OldMarksman]

Lest there be any misunderstanding here, the concern about tigger modifications applies to mods that lighten the pull weight to require less force than would be required to press the trigger on a comparable factory-issued defensive pistol.

Modifications to smooth a trigger, or to make the trigger surface more ergonomic, should not be an issue.

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

The reasons for the removal of single action capability from revolvers, and the reasons for the adoption of semi-auto pistols with longer, heavier triggers, apply to all service and defensive handgun applications.

Why police officers use the weapons those weapons, the caliber and caacity of those weapons, whether they have DAO triggers or DA/SA triggers, or whether they individuals making the purchase choice may have been based on a number of factors to which we were not (and are not) privy.

In many cases it's likely that one of the biggest reasons a police department selects a given weapon may be based on the deals they're offered by the gun maker. (We have reasons to believe that getting a large number of police department to use specific weapons helps the gunmaker sell more of that weapon to the general public.) The specific rationales or justifications the LEO decision-makers use to explain their actions may or may not have played a big a role in the real decision making process.

Any number of accidents or negligent discharges with guns involving police have occurred -- you can even find them on You Tube -- using the very guns that are supposed to be less troublesome. To further complicate matters, we don't know if those accidents happen at a disproportionately higher or lower rate than in the non-LEO universe.

Arguing that the these weapons were selected BECAUSE they may be less likely to be a problem U]MAY be correct[/U], but like some of the other assumptions seen in this discussion, here, that argument is also an assumption, not a FACT.

[OldMarksman]

In many cases it's likely that one of the biggest reasons a police department selects a given weapon may be based on the deals they're offered by the gun maker.

Certainly.

But a police department that selects Glock pistols and that requires a particular trigger specification is more what we are talking about here.

And rules that required the elimination of single action capability from revolvers had nothing whatsoever to do with source selection.

Any number of accidents or negligent discharges with guns involving police have occurred -- you can even find them on You Tube -- using the very guns that are supposed to be less troublesome.

That doesn't tell us very much, does it?

To further complicate matters, we don't know if those accidents happen at a disproportionately higher or lower rate than in the non-LEO universe.

Nor should we care.

Arguing that the these weapons were selected BECAUSE they may be less likely to be a problem MAY be correct, but like some of the other assumptions seen in this discussion, here, that argument is also an assumption, not a FACT.

The argument has been well substantiated.

It is well known that lighter triggers require less force to press than heavier ones, that the length of pull figures in, and that under stress, fine moor skills are affected. It has also been demonstrated that even highly trained personnel who are convinced that they do not touch their triggers before firing often do so repeatedly, even though they are completely unaware of having done do.

But while Massad Ayoob can win matches using a Glock with a New York Trigger, not all of us can do so.

It behooves most of us who are not constrained by departmental regulations to (1)use what we can shoot, and train with it; and (2) to avoid carrying something that is likely to be described by expert witnesses as being an imprudent choice for defensive carry.

[MarkCO]

It behooves most of us who are not constrained by departmental regulations to (1)use what we can shoot, and train with it; and (2) to avoid carrying something that is likely to be described by expert witnesses as being an imprudent choice for defensive carry.

AFAIK, I am the only expert witness who has said anything on this thread, even though some of the attorneys try to imply that they know the subject matter. I am sure someone will get peeved at me again for saying that. But I don't think either of the attorney's who will be questioning me in court on Monday will take exception to that.

If your finger was on the trigger when it should not have been, that will be where I will say someone did not act prudently. If you say you shot when you did not intend to, that is self incrimination and I would not be needed. If you modded your trigger or not, if you had your finger on the trigger, you had better be following the 4 laws of gun safety. If that does mean pointing a gun at a person you intend to destroy, then regardless, you had better meet whatever the legal threshold is to use deadly force whether you pull the trigger or not.

I agree OldMarksman that the training is the key, and most run of the mill CCWers don't have enough of it. Especially in dynamic non-sterile environments.

PS. I have not seen Mas win anything in a very long time. Not that it matters really.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by MarkCO

AFAIK, I am the only expert witness who has said anything on this thread,...

So what? Nothing you've said is relevant to the issue of this thread. You're indeed not qualified to address the jury perception and "art of advocacy" issues. And those issues are why the folks who do understand those issue recommend against a modified trigger on a self defense gun.

[MarkCO]

The job of the expert witness is to assist the trier of fact (jury) on technical issues beyond the understanding of the common man. That is what I do, and frankly, juries respond well to me.

In most cases, it is the lawyers who bungle everything up...exhibit A...the US Congress.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by MarkCO

The job of the expert witness is to assist the trier of fact (jury) on technical issues beyond the understanding of the common man....

Only within the field in which the witness has qualified as an expert and only if the attorney who hired him decides his testimony would be useful.

You are not an expert with regard to any of the issues being discussed in this thread.

[OldMarksman]

If you say you shot when you did not intend to, that is self incrimination and I would not be needed.

Why would anyone involved in a self defense case so claim?

If the actor is claiming self defense, he or she will certainly not say such a thing.

But a prosecutor may see it advantageous to try to prove something else. And a civil plaintiff will almost certainly see the advantage in such a strategy.

And than evidence that might tend to support such an accusation can become important.

[Spats McGee]

I believe this thread has outlived its utility.