1911 Question about Grip Safety

[AEA]

[Bashful]

Here ya go....

[rbrecount]

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.

[G.A. Heath]

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.

Where in case law or state law does this come from? I know that there have been cases in OTHER jurisdictions where people were convicted because the weapon had been modified, but I have seen nothing in Texas. In essence we see "The deceased was running toward the defendant with a machete in hand screaming 'Death to the Crackers! Justice for Treyvon! I want my purple drank!' when the defendant grabbed the first weapon available to him and shot the deceased with a gun that had the sights replaced with competition models." followed by "We the jury find the defendant ..."

Edit to add: On the other hand I would feel far more comfortable with a prosecutors chances if a weapon with a 1/4 pound trigger job, grip and thumb safeties disabled/removed, ect. were to be negligently discharged resulting in injury or death to a third part.

[74novaman]

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.

[WildBill]

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.

[Heartland Patriot]

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.

[WildBill]

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.

[PostShooter]

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.

[apostate]

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.

If you unintentionally shot an innocent third party, I can certainly see how some modifications might be a factor when the prosecutor argues you were reckless. However, if you intentionally shoot someone and are justified in using deadly force, modifications seem rather less relevant.

[Heartland Patriot]

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...its small game where it matters, like rabbits, for instance. Once again, the sheer lack of firearms knowledge on the part of those who are prosecuting OR defending those who have used a firearm is absolutely sickening. If they don't know, they need to do some homework...even looking up a Wikipedia article on it would be better than some claptrap like "man-killing rounds" in conjunction with making a big deal about .22LR hollowpoints. Note that I am NOT saying that a .22 cannot kill someone, it most certainly can and has killed many folks...but I'm talking about the difference between bullet types here.

[eureka40]

Well, here goes nothing. I think if John Moses Browning had not wanted a grip safety on the 1911 it wouldn't have one.

I'll trust his judgement.

[Heartland Patriot]

One other thought: it should not matter if you were using a .458 Winchester Magnum rifle or a .22LR derringer to shoot someone, in regards to the law and guilty or innocent or no true bill...either you WERE justified in shooting them or you were NOT justified in shooting them. THAT is what matters, not grip safeties or hollowpoints or what caliber or how many rounds fit in the firearm.

[rm9792]

I would think that the modifications would only be an issue where you claim it just went off or some similar nonsense. If you intend to shoot then you really shouldnt have an issue of what you shoot. If a prosecutor is hollering about man killing bullets then he is showboating, pushing an agenda or losing badly. ALL bullets, even a .17hmr, are man killing bullets. If I were the defense I would ask the defendant if he tried to buy non-man killing bullets and did manage to find some. Maybe trot out various calibers and inquire as to which were man stopping without killing in their design.