Carry permit and trigger work?

[Fallguy]

So you're saying you'd rather die than have to go through the legal process? Sorry, not me. I like life a little too much for that.

I think you missed this part...

"Wish I could be more sarcastic on how fricked up the legal system is"

[Guest Provence]

Although I cannot go into detail because of attorney/client privilege, I can, from first hand knowledge, say it is very likely a firearm and ammunition used in a Lethal Encounter WILL be checked out. Trigger pull weight, altered or deactivated safeties, and other modifications can be a determining factor in a criminal or civil case.

Right here in Nashville, a firearm and ammunition used in an apparent homicide was THOROUGHLY checked out. The firearm was found to have been modified, and WAS a determining factor in a criminal action a while back.

I have performed forensic background work for attorneys in firearms related incidents.

Leave your carry gun's fire control system stock, and use mainstream factory ammo. Remember Winchester's "Black Talon"? The REAL reason it was discontinued was because the Law Enforcement Community had nicknamed it "BLACK FELON" ammo! Ironically, it performed no better than most of the other brands of premium defensive ammo of the period.

No "Super Devastator", "Ultra Man Killer", or such ammo!

I am reminded of the Harold Fish case in Arizona. Fish shot someone while hiking and contended it was self-defense. He was convicted of second-degree murder. The prosecution made a big issue of the fact that Fish carried a 10mm handgun, contending that a reasonable person would have no need to carry something that powerful.

Someone familiar with firearms would find it perfectly reasonable to carry a 10mm handgun where the main threat is wild animals. Jurors unfamiliar with firearms could buy the prosecution's implication that Fish was just itching to blow someone away.

[DaveTN]

I am reminded of the Harold Fish case in Arizona. Fish shot someone while hiking and contended it was self-defense. He was convicted of second-degree murder. The prosecution made a big issue of the fact that Fish carried a 10mm handgun, contending that a reasonable person would have no need to carry something that powerful.

Someone familiar with firearms would find it perfectly reasonable to carry a 10mm handgun where the main threat is wild animals. Jurors unfamiliar with firearms could buy the prosecution's implication that Fish was just itching to blow someone away.

Emotions by gun owners run high because Harold Fish was convicted. Fish shot an unarmed man. The jury was faced with the question “Was he in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm?†They ruled he was not.

Sure, they used the 10mm to paint him in a bad light; but they really didn’t need it.

As has been posted here time after time you can’t kill someone because they scare you; and that is what Fish did.

I’m not worrying about ammo, calibers, gun type, or action jobs.

[willis68]

Emotions by gun owners run high because Harold Fish was convicted. Fish shot an unarmed man. The jury was faced with the question “Was he in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm?†They ruled he was not.

Sure, they used the 10mm to paint him in a bad light; but they really didn’t need it.

As has been posted here time after time you can’t kill someone because they scare you; and that is what Fish did.

I’m not worrying about ammo, calibers, gun type, or action jobs.

Well put, I feel the same way

[Fallguy]

Emotions by gun owners run high because Harold Fish was convicted. Fish shot an unarmed man. The jury was faced with the question “Was he in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm?” They ruled he was not.

Sure, they used the 10mm to paint him in a bad light; but they really didn’t need it.

As has been posted here time after time you can’t kill someone because they scare you; and that is what Fish did.

I’m not worrying about ammo, calibers, gun type, or action jobs.

I do agree his actions are what convicted him. But it is also correct the DA made and issue of the type of weapon he had, even if it played no direct roll in his conviction.

[Guest Provence]

I do agree his actions are what convicted him. But it is also correct the DA made and issue of the type of weapon he had, even if it played no direct roll in his conviction.

Right. That was all I intended to point out. I think Fish would have been convicted if he had used a .22.

[Punisher84]

The Fish case bothered me. There were alot of facts the jury didn't see. The fact that the "Victim" had a violent history and was actually armed with a screwdriver at the time (Yes I know Fish never saw it) give me pause.

This guy was alone in the woods and had dogs running up to attack him and then a mad man threatening to kill him come charging at him and refused to stop at the sight of a firearm. It sounded like Threat of Serious Bodily Injury or Death to me.

[Fallguy]

The Fish case bothered me. There were alot of facts the jury didn't see. The fact that the "Victim" had a violent history and was actually armed with a screwdriver at the time (Yes I know Fish never saw it) give me pause.

This guy was alone in the woods and had dogs running up to attack him and then a mad man threatening to kill him come charging at him and refused to stop at the sight of a firearm. It sounded like Threat of Serious Bodily Injury or Death to me.

I agree....I wasn't sitting in the Jury box, but from what i have read, I wouldn't have convicted him either.

[Guest janwbrown616]

I think it's important to remember that even in a legal shoot you could still be liable for civil actions against you. It's a shame but there have been BGs sue someone over BS . We all know you can sue anyone for just about anything and its up to the jury to decide. It wouldn't matter to me about trigger work or ammo type, but someone else.....

[Punisher84]

I think it's important to remember that even in a legal shoot you could still be liable for civil actions against you. It's a shame but there have been BGs sue someone over BS . We all know you can sue anyone for just about anything and its up to the jury to decide. It wouldn't matter to me about trigger work or ammo type, but someone else.....

Not anymore. The state of TN passed a law that basically says if you are not legally liable, then you are not liable in a civil suit. The suit can still be brought of course, but it won't go anywhere if you are already cleared legally.

[Fallguy]

Not anymore. The state of TN passed a law that basically says if you are not legally liable, then you are not liable in a civil suit. The suit can still be brought of course, but it won't go anywhere if you are already cleared legally.

Other than if you kill or injur a bystander or damage an innocent party's property. Then you can be held liable to them.

But other than you are right, they can not recover. In fact the law even says the person who brought the suit is supposed to pay your lawyer fees, any lost time from your work and other expenses associated with defending yourself in the lawsuit.

Now, it's doubtful you'd ever actually get any money from them, but hopefully if their lawyer knows all of this it would help stop him from filing a frivolously lawsuit.