TexasCHLforum.com

74novaman wrote:

PostShooter wrote:I can say from personal experience. I was serving on a jury in an armed robbery case last fall and the prosecutor zealously made the point that the perp was carrying a weapon loaded with hollow-point bullets. I can quote from memory that he called them "man-killing" rounds, even though they were only .22LR. I say "only." I guess a .22 HP can be just as deadly as a fist-sized rock, so ANY round is potentially a man-killer. No offense to .22 carriers.

I had asked if it had even been an issue in a self defense case, but thanks for sharing this example.

Did the defendant's lawyer counteract this foolish statement, or did he let it slide? Do you think it made an impact on whether the man was convicted or not?

I was wondering if the DA was using the "man-killer" bullets for establishing an element of the crime "aggravated robbery", i.e. uses or exhibits a deadly weapon. He may have wanted to convince the jury that the .22HP is a deadly weapon. That would make more sense.

I don't know anything about the case that PostShooter talked about. Whether the defendant actually shot a person or just had the firearm during the robbery.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

PostShooter wrote:I can say from personal experience. I was serving on a jury in an armed robbery case last fall and the prosecutor zealously made the point that the perp was carrying a weapon loaded with hollow-point bullets. I can quote from memory that he called them "man-killing" rounds, even though they were only .22LR. I say "only." I guess a .22 HP can be just as deadly as a fist-sized rock, so ANY round is potentially a man-killer. No offense to .22 carriers.

IMHO, if a prosecutor in the State of Texas has to rely on some trivial detail like .22 LR hollowpoint bullets to make his case, it must be pretty lousy to start with and now he or she is just trying some rhetorical drivel. Now, IANAL nor LEO, but on a human being the difference between a .22 HP and solid lead bullet just ain't going to be all that big a difference...

The DA's job is to win = to convict. They will used what ever legal means they can. The DA will try to use emotion as well as the facts convince a jury. If they have to resort to "drivel", they will. Again, winning in their primary goal, not justice.

PostShooter's experience on a Texas jury does give credence to the claim that some DAs will resort to rhetoric about "man-killer" bullets and other such nonsense.

Heartland Patriot wrote:You folks can say what you want, but I really think that this stuff about "modified weapons being used by the prosecution" or "deadly hollow point" or ""man-killer reloaded ammunition", whatever, is being brought up by folks from other states originally, or that have read or heard accounts from incidents from other states, even if they didn't know the source. I know that a certain well-known gun writer, who does have a lot of good info in his articles and books, has some very serious opinions about this sort of thing, but then again, he's from the Northeast/New England area...not surprising, when you look at it like that. However, this is TEXAS, not Noo Yawk, or Cah-lee-for-nee-ah (my lousy Schwarzenegger impression, sorry)...from what I have read and seen in the news the last few months/weeks, the circumstances of the deadly incident count for a lot more than what firearm or ammo was used...or even if a firearm was used at all.

I think I know who you are speaking about. I will agree that it does happen - occasionally. The author makes his living writing and speaking about self defense in various gun magazines so he must constantly publish articles. The subjects of his articles made good headlines and soundbites and probably sell many magazines.

If any diligent researcher searches the literature and news reports, they can come up with enough examples of prosecutors trying to influence a jury by the use of assault rifles, large capacity magazines, killer bullets, hair triggers, etc. How often does this happen? I don't know, but I believe that it's the exception, rather than the rule. Just like magazine authors, newspaper reporters write stories to sell papers.

To me, it is a case of priorities and probabilities. The saying "a lawyer is attached to every bullet" is a hackneyed expression that is almost perfect propoganda for convincing citizens to not own guns or defend themselves. When I weigh the chances of getting injured or killed by a BG versus the probablility of getting charged by an overly zealous DA, I will take my chances.

That said, wrapping a piece of rawhide around the grip of a 1911 is an act of pure bravado that has been propagated by stories of long gone Texas Rangers.

74novaman wrote:

rbrecount wrote:Ho, ho, now, people. If I were a Prosecutor I'd be jumpin' up and down with glee.

A gun used to kill someone had better be original with all original parts as it came from the factory or I'd sink you about modifying a weapon to make it more deadly. A carry firearm must be stock. Even little things to make it more reliable come under scrutiny.

But a range gun or a competition piece would not be faulted. IMO.

Please cite a case in Texas where modifying a firearm resulted in a conviction for self defense.

If a man attacks me and all I have is a wooden bat with rusty nails driven through it Mad Max style, I can use that to defend myself.

If its justifiable self defense, it doesn't matter if I use a stock pistol, modified pistol, one of those evil baby killing AK-47s or a car.

This is the same argument that could be used against a person using "deadly hollow-points" or a "magnum revolver". Fortunately, this type of "Hollywood logic" doesn't happen too often in real life.

george wrote:

WildBill wrote:

george wrote:What Andy said. The last "American Handgunner" has an article concerning the 1910 prototype, without thumb safety.

So, would you carry the 1910 prototype without the thumb safety?

I carry a H&K P7; same idea, different fingers to activate. So, yeah, the lack of thumb safety would not stop me from carrying a 1910.

I don't know if the H&K P7 is the same idea. I thought that squeezing the grip cocked the gun. The 1911 would already be cocked and locked.

george wrote:What Andy said. The last "American Handgunner" has an article concerning the 1910 prototype, without thumb safety.

So, would you carry the 1910 prototype without the thumb safety?

I have read that the original Browning design of the 1911 didn't have a grip safety and that it was put on at the request of the U.S. Army. Many people have said that it isn't necessary and was installed only because the military didn't trust that the GI could safely use the firearm without the extra precaution.

My question to you: If commercial 1911 handguns were sold without a grip safety would you buy and carry it?