By the way. This is not the first time I've heard of a defender being
accused of "intent" based on modifications to the gun or that it had a
"hair trigger" simply because it was a single action (1911 style). It's the
same with hand loaded or frangible ammunition. Massad Ayoob drilled into us
during Lethal Force I. The tactics are common with liability lawyers in
civil suits and some prosecutors. It's the reason I tell my concealment
students to avoid single action defense guns and to use a good hollow point
bullet with a neutral sounding name. Better yet, use what your local police
issue for ammo. This is the first time, however, that I've heard of such
things being codified. Instructions to the jury? I don't know yet.
Scott
On Sep 3, 2016 6:24 PM, "Scott McCarthy" <slmccarthy6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Trying to find the references. No luck yet. I was talking to an IDPA
shooter today at the MoBeach match. He's from CT and has a LTC there. When
he got the license he was given the warning by his police chief. It's just
crazy enough to be true in CT so I'm in the process of warning all my
concealment students. If it's BS I'd rather be wrong than have one of them
in deep trouble.
Scott
On Sep 3, 2016 6:13 PM, "Wyatt Brochu" <wyattbrochu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Scott can you send me the reference source. Is this an agency or judicial
determination.
Wyatt A. Brochu, Esq.
Ruggiero Brochu & Petrarca
Tel: 401-737-8700
On Sep 3, 2016 6:08 PM, "Scott McCarthy" <slmccarthy6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you have a license to carry in CT be aware that if your defensive
firearm has any "enhancements" such as a trigger job or you have it loaded
with non-factory ammunition, you are considered to be carrying "with
intent to kill" which is a felony. So, if you survive a defensive
encounter and are exonerated, you go to jail anyway because you used a
custom / non-factory gun. Yes, this does makes sense in CT.
Be careful.
