Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[rgkeller]

Just so you all know --- Mr. Amidon has a day job, the USPSA gig isn't a full time endeavor for him.....

In my experience he's remarkably quick to respond, subject to his proximity and time on a computer....

thirty days and counting on a somewhat critical issue

[RIIID]

If you really want to go by the rule book "Trigger work" isn't listed as an authorized modification. In the last rule book it was listed as "Action work" and it was authorized. So any gun with trigger/action work would be illegal in Production. Now the first line of the authorized modifications could be interpreted into trigger/action work, the same could also be used to do internal slide lightening as long as you do it by "throating and polishing". We all know that a lightened slide improves reliability and function. Now this is just one way to read the rule book, how many more ways can it be read?

Rich

[makomachine]

If you really want to go by the rule book "Trigger work" isn't listed as an authorized modification. In the last rule book it was listed as "Action work" and it was authorized. So any gun with trigger/action work would be illegal in Production. Now the first line of the authorized modifications could be interpreted into trigger/action work, the same could also be used to do internal slide lightening as long as you do it by "throating and polishing". We all know that a lightened slide improves reliability and function. Now this is just one way to read the rule book, how many more ways can it be read?

Rich

I've got another interpretation - and it's not sarcastic but they way I interpret the rules. The overtravel stop is the only part of the trigger work that is questionable given how this is written. Springs and safeties are specifically listed as approved and the items in the trigger work being changed are tied to those parts. Whether that was the intent of what is prohibited is the question - and I'm not sure if they were dodging the issue or just didn't get it spelled out clearly enough in the rules.

[GeorgeInNePa]

If their are no minimum trigger weight requirements, and all factory safeties function normally, why all the fuss?

In Production doesn't it really come down to minor scoring, 10+1 in the tube at the start and no more than 10 per mag after the start? No

spring (including connectors) or stop can defeat that. Nice triggers in SAFE guns should be accepted universally. The rest of this is just noise.

Jim

Because using that logic wouldn't allow others to say, "But his gun is modified more than mine, that's why he won. No fair!".

[GeorgeInNePa]

US vs. Kelly

The court rejected the literal language of the statute, and the case, saying the law meant what Congress said in the legislative history for it to mean, not what it might or might not say. The court suggested that "and" and "or" can be used interchangably, to further Congress' "intent", as divined from their reports, not from their laws. Alice in Wonderland time, although that sort of hogwash goes on a lot in court.

Wasylow vs. Glock

Where a young man has an AD into his own abdomen.

THE PISTOL HAS NO OUTSIDE LATERAL SAFETY LEVER AND NO GRIP

SAFETY DEVICE. IT IS FIRED LIKE A DOUBLE-ACTION REVOLVER BY

SIMPLY PRESSING THE TRIGGER FOR COMMERCIAL USE. ALWAYS KEEP

THE GUN UNLOADED. WITH THE GUN LOADED DO NOT TOUCH THE TRIGGER

UNLESS YOU INTEND TO FIRE.

First, as to Counts I and II, Wasylow alleges negligence in

design, manufacturing, testing, inspection, distribution,

marketing, and in failure to warn regarding both the Glock pistol

and the storage case. Negligence, in general, requires a duty,

breach of duty, cause-in-fact (or "but-for-cause"), and proximate

cause (or "legal cause"). "The focus of the negligence inquiry is

on the conduct of the defendant. We impose liability when a

product's manufacturer or seller has failed to use reasonable care

to eliminate foreseeable dangers which subject a user to an

unreasonable risk of harm." Colter v. Barber-Greene Co.. 403 Mass.

50, 61 (1988); W. Page Keeton et al., Presser and Keeton on the Law

of Torts section 96, at 683 (5th ed. 1984).

Second, Wasylow alleges breach of the implied warranty of

merchantability in Counts III and IV. This cause of action stands

on a different footing, focusing on the product rather than on the

conduct of the manufacturer or the user. Colter, 403 Mass. at

61-62. In Massachusetts, the warranty of merchantability is

governed by Mass. Gen. L. ch. 106, section 2-314 which provides,

inter alia, that goods must be "fit for the ordinary purposes for

which such goods are used" and must "conform to the promises or

affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any."

section 2-314(2) © and (f). In turn, Massachusetts warranty law

has been interpreted as congruent in nearly all respects with the

strict liability principles in the Restatement (Second) of Torts

section 402A (1965). [footnote 8] Back v. Wickes Corp., 375 Mass.

633, 640 (1978). In other words, although not recognized by name,

the Massachusetts products liability claim for breach of the

warranty of merchantability "is basically the same as strict

liability theory in tort" under Massachusetts law. Haves v. Douglas

Dynamics, 8 F.3d 88, 89 n.1 (1st Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Therefore, a breach of warranty can occur, regardless of

negligence, if either 1) the product is defectively designed, or 2)

foreseeable users are not adequately warned. Kearney v. Philip

Morris, Inc., 1996 WL 74180 at *2 (D. Mass. Feb. 16, 1996). As

with negligence, Wasylow must also prove that Glock's products

were--more likely than not--the cause-in-fact, as well as the

proximate cause of the injury. Id. at *2, 8; Hayes, 8 F.3d at 89;

Lubanski v Coleco Industries, Inc., 929 F.2d 42, 48 (1st Cir.

1991).

From a Texas LE agency:

Officers will not, in any way, alter or modify the trigger or any other part of a firearm without written permission from the department armorer. Each employee will, by every practical means, secure all weapons from unauthorized access.

Another incident would be the one in 1997 where someone modified an SKS to fire full auto to kill a Denver police officer. The state offered testimony to say the perp not only violated the National Firearms Act but did so in such a manner to portray the intent to commit murder with the weapon by modifying its fire control group. I can't find the case number but the reports can be found on line.

So if you don't think an attorney can and will try to say you modified the trigger of a weapon to make it easier to fire the weapon or that you had malicious intent when you did so... well, hope you never wind up in court. Some lawyers will do anything to get their convictions. The pool of pro 2nd Amendment lawyers is real shallow. Remember, if you make it to the point that you are a defendant in court, you've already been arrested for committing a crime in which someone thinks they can win a case against you.

None of what you posted supports your position.

In fact, none of that has anything to do with it.

[Chuck Anderson]

Last I heard from John, he had written his opinion on the rule and submitted it for BOD approval. We won't hear anything else till the BOD gets together (either in person or by email) to vote on it.

[kgunz11]

And that would be your opinion. We all have them.

[makomachine]

Last I heard from John, he had written his opinion on the rule and submitted it for BOD approval. We won't hear anything else till the BOD gets together (either in person or by email) to vote on it.

And do you know what that opinion was? Just curious as to which way this is 'leaning'...

[kgunz11]

Disconnector is not mentioned in that list, so legally it cannot be replaced by a "Ghost Rocket".

JA has answered before (either earlier in this thread or in another thread) to an email stating that installation of a trigger stop, such as the Ghost Rocket, is a no-no. This mod was legal before, not it's not. Changing of the whole upper is OK, but changing to this connector is not!!

I didn't know a "disconnector" was a trigger stop. The gun comes with one, the installation of a Ghost disconnector allows the user to tune it to personal preferences by how much material is removed from the tab. It comes long, and you file it until you like it. You're only replacing a factory part with an aftermarket part that is tunable. It's not a trigger stop.

I'm not arguing with any of the rules, I just don't think they were written as concise as some people would like. I see things in black and white. They are or they aren't. It's an internal/external modification or it isn't.

To me, adding or removing anything to a handgun other than how it comes from the factory is a modification. Polish parts, yes, go for it. Adding set screws, bending parts, removing parts, adding parts, using aftermarket parts, would all be a no go and against the intent of a "Production Division". That's just the way I look at it. If it's meant for off the shelf guns, make them off the shelf guns.

[Jman]

For anyone interested here is a link to a similar thread we were kicking around last fall.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...=71536&st=0

Mods might consider combining them if desired.

Jim

[makomachine]

I'll add one more bit of info to the mix. Just received my membership number yesterday and with the package came the Front Sight Annual Issue 2008. On page 10 there is an article titled "Understanding the Divisions" and here is what it says about Production.

Strictly limited to the use of production handguns with double- or safe-action triggers, Production lines up very nicely for owners of double-action 9mm or .40 S&W firearms. Glocks are popular, as are Berettas, SIGs, Springfields, Para-Ordinance LDA's, and a host of others. Stock revolvers may also be used, including the 7- and 8-shot variants.

Shooters may change the sights, add skate tape, and tune the internal parts of the gun, but externally-visible changes are not legal.

This seems to be in line with what most are saying here regarding changes to the internal workings of the gun are OK - and this is coming from the official journal of the USPSA.

I haven't received a reply to the e-mail as of yet but am going ahead with the work. Hopefully this will get rectified by the BOD soon so that all can clearly understand the intent of the rules and what's legal and not legal. Until then, going to enjoy shooting my gun in whatever division it ends up falling.

[M109R]

I can not understand all the problems as it stands USPSA can not take your pistol apart to inspect. With that in mind they are passing rules that can't be enforced. Until they make provisions to dissemble the pistol as long as it can't be seen from the outside who cares.

[Gary Stevens]

For the record, I have always and still support the ability to do internal trigger work and am against any form of trigger weighing.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Gary Stevens

[bgary]

support the ability to do internal trigger work

Ahhh... there are the pointy horns of the dilemma.

Does "do internal trigger work" mean

... polish existing parts so they are smoother?

... polish and bend existing parts so they work better?

... polish and bend and file and re-shape existing parts so they work better?

... replace existing parts with functionally-identical parts that work better?

... replace existing parts with slightly different designs that work the same way, but better?

... replace existing parts with significantly different designs that work *way* better?

... replace existing parts with totally different design that changes the essential operation of the action?

... reMOVE parts that get in the way of the desired trigger-pull/smooth operation?

... anything goes as long as you can't see it from the outside?

The challenge is to pick one place to draw the line, and then write language which makes it clear that *this* is the line not to be crossed. (For extra credit: if you pick one other than the last one, bonus points if you can identify a way to tell whether a gun is "production legal" or not, without a tech-teardown by a really-really knowledgeable person).

The default "interpretation", right now, according to most people, is the last one. I'd offer that isn't the one the Board discussions have generally landed on. But we've done a crappy job of making clear what *our* interpretation is.

In the meantime, I'd offer the opinion that the rules "should be" interpreted by their plain-language, black-and-white text. Relevant to this discussion, that would lead to the observation that swapping out a disconnector is not explicitly covered by "internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy, reliability and function." Nor is swapping out a disconnector explicitly covered by "Exchange of minor components (springs, safeties, slide stops, guide rods)." Since the rules say "unless specifically authorized above, modifications are prohibited", I think that's a pretty defensible interpretation. But clearly not a popular one, and arguably not an enforceable one.

B

Edited January 14, 2009 by bgary

[Gary Stevens]

Bruce your logic, as normal, is impeccable.

I have a concern though that continues to bother me. Under the last rulebook, either intentionally or unintentionally, we gave a nod to trigger work as long as it was internal. Many, many did that work to their guns. Now we are reversing that previous nod and going in the opposite direction.

To me this forces the shooter, who took us at our word in the old rulebook, to be in the position of either spending more money to revert his gun to a different configuration per our current direction, or to maintain what they have and potentially be in the category of a cheater.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Gary Stevens

[bgary]

Yup, I agree. Like you, I'm *very* reluctant to make rules which "obsolete" things that were previously legal.

But, (as I did all-too-vehemently in a past thread, and don't need to repeat here) I'd question how much of that stuff was "legal" before. The 2004 US rules said "Action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.) is allowed" and "External modifications other than sights not allowed." People "interpreted" the combination of those two things to mean "I can do whatever I want to the internals of my gun as long as you can't see it from the outside."

I'm not personally sure that that interpretation was consistent with the rules (or the Board's "intent" in writing them). The only thing I *am* sure of is that we did a crappy job of telling people where the line was drawn. We ended up with a hodge-podge (no disrespect to anyone intended) of localized interpretations based on specific examples, and failed to create an all-up "rule" that made it clear to all people across all foreseeable situations.

We still have that problem... just from new/different angles. I'd love to find a way to fix it. Clearly.

B

[Gary Stevens]

Enough explosives will solve most problems.

[rgkeller]

Well, now the problem has indentified itself.

[Flexmoney]

We still have that problem... just from new/different angles. I'd love to find a way to fix it. Clearly.

B

I think you wrote your own fix with regards to trigger work:

"I can do whatever I want to the internals of my gun as long as you can't see it from the outside."

Steam is built up, the wheels are rolling and the train is leaving the station. Production division is rocking and rolling. Let's not tell everybody they are on the wrong train.

[RIIID]

The time to draw the line was 9 years ago and stuck to it. With every revision something new was allowed and something that was allowable became illegal. Lets face it the only two parts of a guns exterior that can't be changed/modified is the trigger guard and the dust cover. Internally?

Rich

[bgary]

I think you wrote your own fix:

"I can do whatever I want to the internals of my gun as long as you can't see it from the outside."

Probably. And to underscore rg's observation that I'm the problem, I'd TOTALLY support that language... *IF* it was accompanied by a minimum trigger pull.

But that doesn't "solve the problem". And neither does the language *without* the trigger-weight test.

[rgkeller]

My comment about he problem identifying itself referred to the now obvious facts that the board does not agree on either the underlying issue or on the language of the rule.

[Flexmoney]

Bruce,

...I think you are on the wrong train.

[bgary]

...I think you are on the wrong train.

Train? I thought I was on a shiny yellow short bus. I guess my helmet slipped over my eyes while I was licking windows...

[makomachine]

Well, I got my reply back from John today and wanted to share that clarification with the group. (Although I think some of you already knew where this was headed)

-----------------------------------------

From: John Amidon

Subject: RE: Production Rule Clarification (USPSA)

To: Jason

Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 4:44 PM

Hi Jason,

The rule currently says "you can only do these specific things", and one of the "specific things" is to swap out "springs, safeties, slide stops, guide rods". Period. It doesn't say "etc.". It doesn't say "for example". It doesn't say disconnectors, triggers, strikers, or all kinds of other things.

Nor can you *MODIFY* those things, because that "modification" is not on the list of things that are specifically allowed.

I just want to make it REALLY REALLY CLEAR that what we "intend" by the rules is for it to be a "stock" division, not an equipment race, and we "intend" for the guns to remain close to the way they came from the factory.

Hope this helps clearing this issue up for you.

Regards,

John Amidon

--------------------------------------------------------

Given the intent of the BOD, and the fact I don't want to be labeled a cheater, I'll take my 9mm into Limited once the modification is done. Of course, I really don't want a magwell on my gun (and won't be adding one), and don't want to have to be at a disadvantage in caliber with the Major vs Minor pf issue - but apparently there isn't a division set up for what I'd ideally like to shoot. That division being enhanced stock equipment in a all Minor pf group. 9mm as a caliber is a stock pistol only race it seems...

Regardless, I'll add that John did get back to me in a timely manner and I appreciate his service in support of the USPSA and responsiveness.

Edited January 14, 2009 by makomachine