TexasCHLforum.com

bat1 wrote:Is this the Article ?

Interesting link, but that isn't it. Ayoob has probably written thousands of articles, so it is floating out there somewhere.

mr surveyor wrote:I just don't buy into all the fear mongering of the Ayoob types. How many cases have been prosecuted against Texas CHL's (or any Texan) for use of a firearm that has been (legally) modified?

I think we take some of these stories from the "experts" as having some kind of mythical powers.

Ayoob is neither all-knowing, nor is he infallible. I do not believe he has ever claimed to be. There is one thing I can tell you, after viewing many of his videos, and reading his books, and that is that there is no better friend to the CHL holder and to the second ammendment. Ayoob never advocates that you should not modify your weapon, he only illustrates how this can be used against you by a skillful prosecutor and an ignorant jury. He knows this, for a fact, as he has been present as an expert witness for the defense in many trials.

If you, personally, have a source as to how many of these cases have been prosecuted against Texas CHL holders, then I am sure we would all love to be enlightened. Although my search prowess was admirably amplified while writing papers in graduate school, I do not think I could track down cases that were successfully prosecuted, in the State of Texas, secondary to firearm modification.

Anyway, I do not need to defend Ayoob; but, if I ever find myself a plantiff in a shooting case, I sure would love to have him helping to defend my life and freedom.

RJ

mr surveyor wrote:I just don't buy into all the fear mongering of the Ayoob types. How many cases have been prosecuted against Texas CHL's (or any Texan) for use of a firearm that has been (legally) modified?

I think we take some of these stories from the "experts" as having some kind of mythical powers.

+1

Having a performance upgrade to a gun is not a big deal if it is not taken out of context or goes out of control in court. Some common sense must be applied with any changes to a gun to insure a degree of safety is still present (e.g. don't have a 1# trigger pull or remove the safety).

If you have a gun that had a 12# trigger and it was overly difficult for you to operate safely, lets say you put a trigger kit in that brings the trigger pull to a more modern standard of 5#. While this may be used against you that you made the gun easier to fire, there is also an argument you made the gun much more controllable, and thus more accurate to avoid errant shots. In any case you have to look at what a prudent person in the same circumstances would do

I can see it now..... The prosecutor goes to the CSI lab and asks if my gun was modified in any particular way. The CSI tech says, "Well yes. Is the suspect left-handed?"

"Yes, he is."

"I asked because he had an ambidextrous safety added after he bought it. This would make it safer for him to handle and carry the gun."

"I see..........anything else?"

"Well, yes......It appears that he had a trigger job done."

"A TRIGGER job?!?!?!? Does that make the gun more lethal?"

"Well, it would help improve accuracy, so he would be less likely to hit something he wasn't aiming at."

"More accurate, eh? Wait 'till the jury hears that!"

The Annoyed Man wrote:
"More accurate, eh? Wait 'till the jury hears that!"

So, you must have intended to Kill someone, and this is PREMEDITATED ! Because you not only intended to kill someone, but in have in-fact stated "YOU WANTED to be more accurate in your intent !

Oh this could be FUN....

BAT

Andy, andy, andy....

AndyC wrote:How do you equate accuracy with "intent to kill"? Second, why would you want him to have had a less accurate firearm, which might have caused him to pose a danger to innocent bystanders?

"The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up"

Don't worry, I'm NOT a lawyer, and don't think to hard about it...


BAT

bat1 wrote: "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up"

Woah, I think I just fell into a wormhole. Or maybe a rabbit hole?

Nothing in the law cares about what you do to your gun. All what matters if the shooting is justified or not.
Lawyers can say whatever they want and lie like Bozo in a circus. Everone in US saw and heard how mom who killed her 2-yrs old tot walked away from murder.

Beiruty wrote:Nothing in the law cares about what you do to your gun. All what matters if the shooting is justified or not.
Lawyers can say whatever they want and lie like Bozo in a circus. Everone in US saw and heard how mom who killed her 2-yrs old tot walked away from murder.

1) Bozo is a liar? Say it isn't so!
2) What does the Casey Anthony case have to do with justified shootings?
3) For a hoot, try googling "mother kills child" almost 40 MILLION hits. (Mother kills children is 44 million.)

sjfcontrol wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Nothing in the law cares about what you do to your gun. All what matters if the shooting is justified or not.
Lawyers can say whatever they want and lie like Bozo in a circus. Everone in US saw and heard how mom who killed her 2-yrs old tot walked away from murder.

1) Bozo is a liar? Say it isn't so!
2) What does the Casey Anthony case have to do with justified shootings?
3) For a hoot, try googling "mother kills child" almost 40 MILLION hits. (Mother kills children is 44 million.)

2) Nothing, but lies...
Aliens came down from outer space and abducted and killed the little girl, mom was operated on by Aliens to lie to the LEOs. That story is more plausible than the utter non-sense said in court of law.

Only way I can see that a modified gun would hurt you is if you try to claim accidental discharge or something and they discover you disabled safety devices. However I would make them prove YOU had it modified. "Thats the way I bought it from a guy used. Dont remember his name" should work fine. I have got boxes of old parts and have completed many FTF deals (get bored and trade or sell stuff) so good luck with that MR Prosecutor. I would think intent would be more in play than a removed Swartz device from your Kimber.

rm9792 wrote: "Thats the way I bought it from a guy used. Dont remember his name" should work fine

Humm, I would say an attempt to lie to authorities, would not be a good Idea If that your in that position

The Old saying, "The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable." You first hire a good lawyer, and the truth, an attempt to Deceive, will always backfire

I would suggest, IF you made any mods, let your lawyer know exactly why you made them, and in most cases a good lawyer will make good of it.. Unless your mods was done for wrong reasons, and I just do see that in any case.. the only case I can see if you make it Full auto, and that would be bad..

BAT

AndyC wrote:How do you equate accuracy with "intent to kill"? Second, why would you want him to have had a less accurate firearm, which might have caused him to pose a danger to innocent bystanders?

It was a joke.