Even if you aren't concerned with a prosecutor implying you might not have shot the other person had your finger not been on a ~3 lb "hair" trigger, you may be concerned that your mods might be less reliable than factory parts. 

If the gun fails to go "bang" in a moment of need, you might wish you'd left well enough alone.

All depends on your level of trust in the upgraded parts and workmanship.

One example of doubt in "upgrades" is the BAD (battery assist device) lever, or whatever it's called.  I've seen so many guns that functioned just fine without it start all sorts of feeding problems with it installed.  I'm not sure what the truth or cause is, but just from what I've seen, I wouldn't include that on any of my guns.  I've shot a friend's gun with that device and I can see how it can make things easier, quicker, etc.  Just I would have no trust in it, even if I did like the performance improvement that it offered. 

Very good points.

It's also why many suggest not using reloads for SD purposes too.

I've heard that quite often as well.  However, I don't reload, so I haven't looked into that aspect much. 

Exactly what you said drck.
Lots of folks talk about what happens if you lighten the trigger or use XYZ ammo.
I was just agreeing with your attorney friend. Although I'm no attorney.
Legal mods meaning you didn't unload a full auto on the perp. Or shoot him with sawed-off shotgun, etc..

Check out some lever actions in .357 (if you have a .357 revolver) they're not much bigger than small pellet guns.

Now the slide-fire stock.  That's something that makes me   

Yeah, I recently got a S&W 686 plus and have been looking for a lever action to partner up with it.  I really want a Winchester, but those things are damn pricey!

Just be aware that, if I'm not mistaken, under hawaii law, if they do charge you with a felony the use of a semi-auto carries a longer mandatory minimum than the use of a revolver.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0706/HRS_0706-0660_0001.htm

...
Wow, I did not know that there was discrimination between a revolver and a semiauto pistol.
How did that law get on the books?
So if I used a 44 mag revolver to commit a robbery, I would get less jail time than if I used a ruger mk1 22 semiauto?

Realistically speaking no one really knows if this can/will be used against you.  It might be a non issue in one state/county and a big deal in another.  It's really up to the DA/attorney that is trying/suing you. 

Any good prosecutor will use whatever he thinks he can that will help him win...that's his job. If he thinks he can make the jury think you wanted to shoot someone, or that you used ammunition that was particularly lethal (yeah, I know but that's the tact they will take...), or used a firearm that was modified to have a "hair trigger," he will. Remember, in jury selection (you will want a jury trial...) the other side will do their best to seat those they think would be most adversarial to your case. So, not only will your defense have to counter the allegations that the mere fact you owned a gun means that you are a homicidal nut-case just looking for a reason to whip out your undersized penis, errrr, I mean gun and shoot someone, or that the ammunition you used was hollow-point super, duper, gonna blow a hole in the bad guy the size of a dinner plate hole in him, or that you modified your gun's trigger to fire the gun with the lightest touch of your finger, he'll have to overcome any bias jury members may have about guns and gun owners.

The intent of some of these "suggestions" are rooted in trying to remove any potential for an over-zealous prosecutor to use against you. I do know that there are cases where the type of ammunition used, or modifications to the gun used, were elements in the prosecution. Massad Ayoob discussed one case where reloaded ammunition was used by the prosecutor. Not because of how "deadly" it was, but because of the forensic evidence for GSR. In short, there are references that reflect the GSR properties of commercial ammunition, how it disperses and remnant chemical compounds, which are noted in an investigation. In the case of reloaded ammo no such database existed. Therefore the prosecution used that to their advantage. I believe the defendant eventually got off, but that ammo issue greatly increased his costs and complicated his defense.

For all the reasons outlined above, I'm not sure I would pick a jury trial.

My experience with judge trials is they stick to the letter of the law and don't allow the distractions. (Emotions etc.)
Gun was modded. Was it legal. Yes. Move on.
Ammo was lethal. Was it legal. Yes. Move on.

Issue becomes almost strictly was deadly force justified.
You kill somebody in the State of Hawaii you better be pretty darn sure deadly force was justified.
And remember our Castle Doctrine law is pretty weak. (Even though HRA testified against strengthening it last legislative session)

For all the reasons outlined above, I'm not sure I would pick a jury trial.

My experience with judge trials is they stick to the letter of the law and don't allow the distractions. (Emotions etc.)
Gun was modded. Was it legal. Yes. Move on.
Ammo was lethal. Was it legal. Yes. Move on.

Issue becomes almost strictly was deadly force justified.
You kill somebody in the State of Hawaii you better be pretty darn sure deadly force was justified.
And remember our Castle Doctrine law is pretty weak. (Even though HRA testified against strengthening it last legislative session)

I think most criminal defense lawyers advise their clients to opt for a jury trial. The choice, of course, is driven by the individual case and the circumstances therein.

Here's a nice write up for using self-defense in a legal proceeding:

http://www.aware.org/legal-articles/8-content/73-defending-the-self-defense-case-by-lisa-j-steele

"'Killer' Bullets and Hair-Triggers
The attorney should research the weapon and ammunition the client used. Ask the client why he purchased and carried that specific weapon. Research its self-defense uses.

The client will be in the strongest position if he or she used a firearm and ammunition similar to that issued to local police departments. Many police departments issue semi-automatic pistols chambered for 9mm or larger caliber with jacketed hollow-point (JHP) ammunition. If the client has used hollow-point ammunition, the attorney should understand and be able to quickly explain to a judge or jury why JHP ammunition is widely recommended for self-defense use.29 The attorney should have a gunsmith or other expert check the amount of pressure required to pull the trigger on a recovered firearm for the first shot and any subsequent shots, and check its safety devices to make sure they were functioning."

The fact that a defense focused legal primer notes this as a significant factor in planning a good defense should be evidence enough that it should enter into everyone's evaluation of the tools they may choose to use.

Any good prosecutor will use whatever he thinks he can that will help him win...that's his job. If he thinks he can make the jury think you wanted to shoot someone, or that you used ammunition that was particularly lethal (yeah, I know but that's the tact they will take...), or used a firearm that was modified to have a "hair trigger," he will. Remember, in jury selection (you will want a jury trial...) the other side will do their best to seat those they think would be most adversarial to your case. So, not only will your defense have to counter the allegations that the mere fact you owned a gun means that you are a homicidal nut-case just looking for a reason to whip out your undersized penis, errrr, I mean gun and shoot someone, or that the ammunition you used was hollow-point super, duper, gonna blow a hole in the bad guy the size of a dinner plate hole in him, or that you modified your gun's trigger to fire the gun with the lightest touch of your finger, he'll have to overcome any bias jury members may have about guns and gun owners.

The intent of some of these "suggestions" are rooted in trying to remove any potential for an over-zealous prosecutor to use against you. I do know that there are cases where the type of ammunition used, or modifications to the gun used, were elements in the prosecution. Massad Ayoob discussed one case where reloaded ammunition was used by the prosecutor. Not because of how "deadly" it was, but because of the forensic evidence for GSR. In short, there are references that reflect the GSR properties of commercial ammunition, how it disperses and remnant chemical compounds, which are noted in an investigation. In the case of reloaded ammo no such database existed. Therefore the prosecution used that to their advantage. I believe the defendant eventually got off, but that ammo issue greatly increased his costs and complicated his defense.

GZ no lawyer, but I think these arguments would be more relevant in a civil suit as opposed to a criminal suit.  Given some over zealous DA/ADA might go in this direction..............anywhooo...........in my opinion the whole hair trigger and lethal ammo for a SD situation is still really smoke and mirrors as the pertinent information is still did the person have a reasonable expectation to fear for his life, etc.

Now in a civil suit where the onus is not to show beyond a reasonable doubt and payouts can be due to partial responsibility.........there's the cash cow that some unscrupulous people would be lining up to cash in on.

GZ no lawyer, but I think these arguments would be more relevant in a civil suit as opposed to a criminal suit.  Given some over zealous DA/ADA might go in this direction..............anywhooo...........in my opinion the whole hair trigger and lethal ammo for a SD situation is still really smoke and mirrors as the pertinent information is still did the person have a reasonable expectation to fear for his life, etc.

Now in a civil suit where the onus is not to show beyond a reasonable doubt and payouts can be due to partial responsibility.........there's the cash cow that some unscrupulous people would be lining up to cash in on.

-I am no lawyer either, so whatever I say is just from research or personal experience. That being said, the only cases a DA/ADA/DA would prosecute would be a criminal suit, which is what a self-defense trial is: You admit that you committed a "crime" (homicide) but with good reason. The handful of cases I've read about on this matter have all been criminal cases. I'm sure some of the same arguments would be used in any subsequent civil case.

Of course the arguments over "killer bullets" and "Hair triggers" are smoke and mirrors. It's supposed to; move the argument from the facts to the emotional arena. That fact, that it's smoke and mirrors, does not negate the fact it may be used at trial, to greater or lesser effect depending on the circumstances and "zealouness" of a prosecutor and to dismiss it in preparing would be negligent. I believe there is a saying among lawyers: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell."

UPGRADE:

1) Sell Glock

2) Use money from sold glock to buy 12ga shot gun and buckshot.

3) Use buckshot for self defense.


You are welcome. 

-I am no lawyer either, so whatever I say is just from research or personal experience. That being said, the only cases a DA/ADA/DA would prosecute would be a criminal suit, which is what a self-defense trial is: You admit that you committed a "crime" (homicide) but with good reason. The handful of cases I've read about on this matter have all been criminal cases. I'm sure some of the same arguments would be used in any subsequent civil case.

Of course the arguments over "killer bullets" and "Hair triggers" are smoke and mirrors. It's supposed to; move the argument from the facts to the emotional arena. That fact, that it's smoke and mirrors, does not negate the fact it may be used at trial, to greater or lesser effect depending on the circumstances and "zealouness" of a prosecutor and to dismiss it in preparing would be negligent. I believe there is a saying among lawyers: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell."

I hear you HiCarry, unfortunately the only way we know for sure in Hawaii is when the DA/ADA decide to try a case and use those tactics.  Given how fearful the people in Hawaii can be of firearms I wouldn't put it past the jury to exclude the facts and go off of emotion.

Modified guns are okay as long as they are safe and reliable and I don't think a prosecutor would go after that unless you really screwed up or had a negligent discharge.  However attorneys will go after every thing they can on modified weapons when they sue you.  They will sue you no matter how right you are.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/nyregion/at-officer-peter-liangs-trial-tears-and-testing-of-a-police-issued-gun.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Interesting. They're even questioning a cops gun in NY.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/nyregion/at-officer-peter-liangs-trial-tears-and-testing-of-a-police-issued-gun.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Interesting. They're even questioning a cops gun in NY.

...
What a strangely written article.

I think 85% of all shootings involving a "modified" or "defective" firearm are actually negligent discharges that the person is ignorant of or doesn't want to admit to.  Another 10% is due to botched modifications.  And under 5% is actual defective firearms.

Modified guns are okay as long as they are safe and reliable and I don't think a prosecutor would go after that unless you really screwed up or had a negligent discharge.  However attorneys will go after every thing they can on modified weapons when they sue you.  They will sue you no matter how right you are.

And your opinion is based on what? A prosecutor, as mentioned previously in a case Massad Ayoob chronicled, used the fact that reloaded ammo was used and altered the know facts relating to gunshot residue analysis. If you think a prosecutor isn't going to go after your accurized trigger, calling it a "hair trigger" and in the process making you look like a deranged gun nut looking for any opportunity to kill someone, you are, IMHO, mistaken.

I think 85% of all shootings involving a "modified" or "defective" firearm are actually negligent discharges that the person is ignorant of or doesn't want to admit to.  Another 10% is due to botched modifications.  And under 5% is actual defective firearms.

Sources please

Was deadly force justifiable ?

Know the law.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.HTM
And read the commentary and case notes at the bottom.

Everything else will come second in my opinion.

If you claim negligent/accidental discharge, you better believe any and all mods to your firearm will come into question.

Sources please

Sources are opinions, hence the "I think".

And your opinion is based on what? A prosecutor, as mentioned previously in a case Massad Ayoob chronicled, used the fact that reloaded ammo was used and altered the know facts relating to gunshot residue analysis. If you think a prosecutor isn't going to go after your accurized trigger, calling it a "hair trigger" and in the process making you look like a deranged gun nut looking for any opportunity to kill someone, you are, IMHO, mistaken.

To me it's the same as saying we shouldn't use AR15 rifles for home defense or protection because the prosecutor will say it's an assault rifle used for war.  Or we shouldn't use hollowpoints because they are so good at killing people that the military doesn't use them.  Or that an extensive background in firearms training means you are waiting to take someone out.  I'm wondering what percentage of modified firearms fired in self defense does the prosecutor bring up modified guns?  Now I wouldn't want to be that one guy that gets prosecuted because of an evil modified gun.  We should do what we can to limit liability however there are other areas that we should focus on, such as the vast majority of people owning firearms lack the minimum training to use a firearm in self defense safely or even training using verbal skills to deescalate a situation.