Safety Modification Legal Issues?

[SkepticalChymist]

I've read in more then once place that modifying a safety on a weapon or removing it could have certain legal ramifications. Can anyone describe why?

I removed the magazine disconnect safety on my SR9c and am wondering. I guess I don't really get why that could be an issue.

 

[vacextar]

While I'm not going to pretend to be any kind of legal expert, and I do realize that our legal system is far from perfect, here is my view on this.

Unless someone was injured or killed as a direct result of a safety being removed or any kind of modification to the gun, I see no reason that it should come into play, and to be honest, if you were involved in a shooing with a gun that you removed the mag disconnect from, if you don't tell anyone that the gun was originally equipped with a mag disconnect, how would they even know it was removed? The vast majority of law enforcement officers and lawyers are not even going to know whether the gun originally had one, or still has one, or if it has been removed?

I'm sure there is a large percentage of law enforcement officers right now that if you asked them if their gun had a mag disconnect, they would either not know for sure, or not even know what a mag disconnect is. Sad but true.

In the end, in court, either it was a justifiable shooting, or it wasn't. IMO, the arguements are going to revolve around what happened before, during and immediately after the shooting, and if the evidence points toward a real need for self-defense or if it could have been avoided.....not whether or not you had a working mag disconnect in your gun.....especially if that mag disconnect never came into play.

On the flip side, if your removed mag disconnect does come into play (meaning that you fired the gun and killed or injured someone ON PURPOSE IN SELF DEFENSE with no mag in the gun), it probably means that you're living to argue in court because of it. I'd rather fight that one out in court and be living instead of dead because my installed mag disconnect prevented me from using my gun to protect myself. It's still going to come down to the court deciding whether or not it was a justifiable shooting or not.

 

[Mike J]

Some people say ( most notably Massad Ayoob) that removing a safety device can give ammunition to a prosecutor. It gives them the opportunity to characterize you as an unsafe or reckless person. The people who will be judging you are most likely not gun people. They may not understand exactly what a magazine disconnect is or what it does. Just that you removed a safety item that was installed by the manufacturer. Think about, "So Mister SkepticalChymist you are saying that you believe yourself so intelligent & firearms savvy that you know better than the manufacturer of your gun what is safe & unsafe," or something like that.

 

[Yawn]

Good post Mike... that is probably the exact argument, and I know many people who taht argument would be enough for a guilty plea...

 

[Snake45]

Some people say ( most notably Massad Ayoob) that removing a safety device can give ammunition to a prosecutor. It gives them the opportunity to characterize you as an unsafe or reckless person. The people who will be judging you are most likely not gun people. They may not understand exactly what a magazine disconnect is or what it does. Just that you removed a safety item that was installed by the manufacturer. Think about, "So Mister SkepticalChymist you are saying that you believe yourself so intelligent & firearms savvy that you know better than the manufacturer of your gun what is safe & unsafe," or something like that.

Correct answer, and well done. :wink: Removing any kind of "safety device" from you gun could be made to sound to a jury something like you removed the rear brakes from your car "to save weight for better gas mileage." If you don't like the mag-disconnect feature, you're better off getting a gun that doesn't have one in the first place.

 

[vacextar]

As I said above, I have no illusions that our legal system is perfect, but does anyone have any known cases where a clear self-defense shooting (permit holder with legal firearm) has landed someone in prison because they removed their mag disconnect?

As broken as our legal system is, I think it's about 100,000 times more likely to set the guilty free than to imprison the innocent over trivial little crap like this. I suspect that some of you have watched too many episodes of Law and Order or something?

Using the "reasoning" that you guys are now, I wouldn't even want to carry a Glock as a CC gun.......wouldn't the prosecuter have a field day with that!...."this guy is so reckless he chose to buy and carry a gun that has no safety at all!"

 

[Snake45]

As I said above, I have no illusions that our legal system is perfect, but does anyone have any known cases where a clear self-defense shooting (permit holder with legal firearm) has landed someone in prison because they removed their mag disconnect?

Yes, there's a well-documented case, and even more scary, the gun in question wasn't even the one used in the self-defense shooting, but another one the defender owned.

But if you want to remove the thing and take your chances, go right ahead. I'll wait for you here. :wink:

 

[Jeff Quinn]

All the prosecutor has to do is to convince twelve of your peers that you were negligent or reckless in doing so.

Look around at your peers. They are buying lotto tickets down at the local Stop-N-Rob, wearing dirty sweat pants and sucking on a Big Gulp.

 

[Mike J]

IIRC the person was in trouble because of a negligent discharge. The negligent discharge happened in an office with a gun he was carrying. The other gun was a Browning High Power with the magazine disconnect removed. It was in his car & the magazine disconnect had already been removed before he purchased it. He wound up taking a plea deal of some sort but that is about all I can remember.

 

[Mike J]

I remembered a thread so I dug it up. It is from The High Road. Mas's posts start at post 21 IIRC here is the link http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=466935

 

[vacextar]

Mike is right. That case has absolutely nothing to do with a self-defense shooting. Big difference between an accidental discharge and a self-defense shooting.........

 

[Snake45]

Mike is right. That case has absolutely nothing to do with a self-defense shooting. Big difference between an accidental discharge and a self-defense shooting.........

You're right. The attack on you would be much WORSE in a self-defense shooting. :evil:

But hey, you do what you want. "You buys your ticket and you rides your ride." Good luck with that! :wink:

ETA: And BTW, hope that a prosecutor or ambulance-chasing plaintiff's attorney doesn't trace you to this thread, where you were told by trained people that it's a bad idea and why, and then chose to do otherwise. You won't even be able to claim ignorance. Ouch! :?

 

[Mike J]

vacextar I am not saying I think it is a good idea to remove a magazine disconnect. I do not like Rugers mag disconnect design but I may still wind up with one of their SR guns sooner or later. If I do decide to buy one I will have to accept the mag disconnect as part of the package.

I do not modify defensive firearms past changing the grips & maybe the sights. Safety devices & lightened triggers are taboo to me. I did at one time change the hammer spring in my old P944 for a reduced power Wolff spring. I did not have any malfunctions with it but I changed it back. The reason I changed it back was a conversation I had with a local LEO. His partner had shot someone while on duty. He told me that lightened triggers or modified guns are something that can get you burned. I believe he was in a position to know. I am not saying I agree with every single thing Mas Ayoob writes but he is a position to know a lot more than me & I believe there is much to be learned from him.

As far as this persons situation being due to a negligent discharge. We are responsible for every bullet that leaves our guns whether intentional or not. I know we all strive to be safe but bad stuff can happen & all it takes is a split seconds carelessness.

That said we all make our own decisions. We spend our money & take our chances. Do what you feel is best for you.

 

[vacextar]

Mike is right. That case has absolutely nothing to do with a self-defense shooting. Big difference between an accidental discharge and a self-defense shooting.........

You're right. The attack on you would be much WORSE in a self-defense shooting. :evil:

But hey, you do what you want. "You buys your ticket and you rides your ride." Good luck with that! :wink:

Show me the verdict of a legal case that involves a self-defense shooting with a legal gun owner using a legal gun with the mag disconnect removed.

Not exactly sure why you're attacking me here? I'm genuinely wanting to know if there is such a case out there and what the results were.....after all that's what this DISCUSSION is supposed to be about. You can say that you're right as much as you want, but without some existing legal cases to back up that statement, it's nothing more than an opinion......not fact.

Yes, I will do what I want, and will choose to remove a device from my gun that I feel is an anti-safety for me (in other words it puts me in more danger being in the gun than removed from the gun) , same as you can choose to leave yours in your gun.

 

[Snake45]

Mike is right. That case has absolutely nothing to do with a self-defense shooting. Big difference between an accidental discharge and a self-defense shooting.........

You're right. The attack on you would be much WORSE in a self-defense shooting. :evil:

But hey, you do what you want. "You buys your ticket and you rides your ride." Good luck with that! :wink:

Show me the verdict of a legal case that involves a self-defense shooting with a legal gun owner using a legal gun with the mag disconnect removed.

Not exactly sure why you're attacking me here? I'm genuinely wanting to know if there is such a case out there and what the results were.....after all that's what this DISCUSSION is supposed to be about. You can say that you're right as much as you want, but without some existing legal cases to back up that statement, it's nothing more than an opinion......not fact.

Yes, I will do what I want, and will choose to remove a device from my gun that I feel is an anti-safety for me (in other words it puts me in more danger being in the gun than removed from the gun) , same as you can choose to leave yours in your gun.

Hey, have at it. Be prepared to explain to a jury of "reasonable men and women" why you removed a "safety device" from your firearm. Maybe they'll agree with you. Maybe the issue won't come up at all. As I said, you buy your ticket and you ride your ride.

I'm not attacking you. You asked for advice, you've been given good advice (and not just by me), and you want to argue with it for some reason. So be it. Good luck to you!

 

[SkepticalChymist]

Thanks for all the replies. I'll have to give it some thought on if I replace it or not.

I mainly removed it because of the risk of damaging the weapon if it's dry fired without a magazine. I don't like the safety device but I can live with it.

 

[Verndog]

...Hey, have at it. Be prepared to explain to a jury of "reasonable men and women" why you removed a "safety device" from your firearm. Maybe they'll agree with you. Maybe the issue won't come up at all. As I said, you buy your ticket and you ride your ride.

I too have to wonder what the chances are this would even come up. If noboby can show actual evidence that it has been used against a legal owner SD case then I'm willing to bet it's a non issue just hype.

Personally of all the safety arguements on the SR9c the mag DC is the one I'd prefer to NOT have. Since I'm not having issue with it, I left mine in just as a CYA.

 

[vacextar]

ETA: And BTW, hope that a prosecutor or ambulance-chasing plaintiff's attorney doesn't trace you to this thread, where you were told by trained people that it's a bad idea and why, and then chose to do otherwise. You won't even be able to claim ignorance. Ouch! :?

First off, thanks to Mike for a calm, collected and logical response......what I would expect in a DISCUSSION about this subject.

Snake.....what exactly makes you any more "trained" than I am (implying that your OPINION is more valid than mine)? I am a legal gun owner with a legal CC permit, carrying a legal firearm. If I'm confronted with a lethal situation in which I have to use lethal force to protect my life, what exactly am I going to have to claim ignorance about? I know exactly what all of the safeties of my gun do and why and when I should use them, so I do not see any reason to claim ignorance over anything since none of what I've done is illegal.

As I said many times before, I'd much rather be alive to plead my case than be dead because my gun went click instead of bang when I needed it most. So if you're an ambulance chaser, and you're reading this post, and I've been involved in a self-defense shooting, please understand that:

" I DO UNDERSTAND that I've removed my mag disconnect from my Ruger SR9c due to the fact that Ruger's design of the mag disconnect has a real possibility of causing my gun to malfunction when I need it most to protect me or my family. This device serves no purpose in keeping me or my family safe. With this fact in mind, I see no advantage of leaving this device installed in my gun and MANY advantages to the safety of me and my family to remove this device from my gun. I do not see carrying this gun with this device removed as any different (or more or less dangerous) than carrying my Glock pistol which has essentially the same trigger system but comes from the factory without a mag disconnect installed. To me, these two guns are now comparable in their overall "safeness" and should be treated in a court of law as being "equally safe"."

 

[Verndog]

ETA: And BTW, hope that a prosecutor or ambulance-chasing plaintiff's attorney doesn't trace you to this thread, where you were told by trained people that it's a bad idea and why, and then chose to do otherwise. You won't even be able to claim ignorance. Ouch! :?

That will be the day that I believe someone on an internet forum is a trained professional because "they said so" LOL.

Some things to REALLY worry about if you have to defend yourself in a SD shooting case, keeping in mind the prosecutor wants to show you are an obsessed gun fanatic.

Why did you get a concealed weopons permit?

How much ammunition do you keep on hand?

How many guns do you own? -- leading to...

Why do you feel the need to own so many weapons?

How much training have you had to carry a concealed weapon?

How often do you go to the range and what type of targets do you shoot??

....many more...

OK get the point? ....there likely are more obvious questions that can be asked to paint you into a paranoid gun freak.

 

[Snake45]

Snake.....what exactly makes you any more "trained" than I am (implying that your OPINION is more valid than mine)?

Well, I've paid a good deal of my own money and spent in excess of 120 hours of class time being instructed by the man with probably more firearms-related court time on SD issues than anyone in the world. I'm passing along to you for free what I learned. You can take it or leave it; matters not at all to me, I won't have to answer questions about YOUR gun or what YOU did to it. I'll waste no more of your time. Good day to you, sir!

 

[Snake45]

Why did you get a concealed weopons permit?

How much ammunition do you keep on hand?

How many guns do you own? -- leading to...

Why do you feel the need to own so many weapons?

How much training have you had to carry a concealed weapon?

How often do you go to the range and what type of targets do you shoot??

....many more...

OK get the point? ....there likely are more obvious questions that can be asked to paint you into a paranoid gun freak.

Yep, all those and more. Never underestimate the ability of a desperate attorney to try to muddy an issue with completely irrelevant nonsense. :wink:

 

[edteach]

I disagree. I think that removing a mag safety as long as it is not part of anything else like the SR9 is not a problem. With the mag in the gun it is disengaged anyway. I really don't see how anyone PA can make a stand on that. I for one removed my MS and shot it today had not problems with anything related to the MS. I shot a couple of single rounds with the mag out. Not a problem. I think that we can worry our selfs to death over what ifs. A girl scout can sue you for not having your side walk clear of ice and slipping and falling. I can't worry about what if someone breaks into my home and slips on the slate floor and breaks his neck. Now that said taking off a safety for firing the gun or modifying the trigger to lighten the poundage I may buy could cause a problem if it caused an accident.

 

[mikeruth]

No Proof (documented case outcome). No lawyer's legal opinion.

 

[Snake45]

No lawyer's legal opinion.

Go get your own lawyer's professional opinon, and have him put it in writing for you, whatever it is. :wink:

 

[Mike J]

From what I have read about Ayoob. From what of his stuff I have read. I believe him to be pretty straight up. He has acted as an expert witness on many court cases as well as being a gunwriter & firearms/self defense instructor. Now here is my question, if there were no validity to his statement that it is a bad idea to remove a magazine disconnect, if it were not possible that it could be used against you in a court of law. What would be his motive for saying it could? What would he possibly have to gain from making this statement that annoys so many gunners?

Just something to think about.

 

[Verndog]

...What would be his motive for saying it could? What would he possibly have to gain from making this statement that annoys so many gunners?
Just something to think about.

I don't believe anybody is saying it's impossible somebody may attempt to use it, somewhere, someday, somehow. What it boiles down to is it a valid concern? If it's a once in a million chance lets say, is that a "valid" concern. To the extreemly paranoid it is, to the average person it is not.

As to Ayoob's advise it simply may be advise weighing to the side of caution. His advise is slighted that way to get people to consider everything. I think if you are justified in a cut and dried SD case this is 100% a non issue, if there are some close and questionable choices made and possibly it could have been settled without deadly force, well possibly the prosecution uses it...if they even find the issue.

Bottom line there are rarely 100% guarantees in life, it boiles down to what are the odds. After all there is a chance a meteor could land on my head on the way to work...do I avoid the drive over it ??

Here is Massad Ayoob's relative quote on the issue...it makes no claim to an actual case...

I did not remove the internal lock, for the simple reason that I’ve seen a prosecutor raise hell about a deactivated safety device when trying to establish the element of recklessness that is a key ingredient in a manslaughter conviction. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant was so reckless that he DEACTIVATED A SAFETY DEVICE ON A LETHAL WEAPON, and so arrogant that he thought he knew more about the gun than the factory that made it!” That’s a mountain I’d rather not have to climb in court, nor debate in front of twelve jurors selected in part by opposing counsel for their lack of knowledge of firearms.

 

[Snake45]

...What would be his motive for saying it could? What would he possibly have to gain from making this statement that annoys so many gunners?
Just something to think about.

I don't believe anybody is saying it's impossible somebody may attempt to use it, somewhere, someday, somehow. What it boiles down to is it a valid concern? If it's a once in a million chance lets say, is that a "valid" concern. To the extreemly paranoid it is, to the average person it is not.

As to Ayoob's advise it simply may be advise weighing to the side of caution. His advise is slighted that way to get people to consider everything. I think if you are justified in a cut and dried SD case this is 100% a non issue, if there are some close and questionable choices made and possibly it could have been settled without deadly force, well possibly the prosecution uses it...if they even find the issue.

Bottom line there are rarely 100% guarantees in life, it boiles down to what are the odds. After all there is a chance a meteor could land on my head on the way to work...do I avoid the drive over it ??

Here is Massad Ayoob's relative quote on the issue...it makes no claim to an actual case...

I did not remove the internal lock, for the simple reason that I’ve seen a prosecutor raise hell about a deactivated safety device when trying to establish the element of recklessness that is a key ingredient in a manslaughter conviction. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant was so reckless that he DEACTIVATED A SAFETY DEVICE ON A LETHAL WEAPON, and so arrogant that he thought he knew more about the gun than the factory that made it!” That’s a mountain I’d rather not have to climb in court, nor debate in front of twelve jurors selected in part by opposing counsel for their lack of knowledge of firearms.

Somewhere in America right now, even as you read this, someone is cruising down the interstate at 80 mph on four bald tires. The odds are that they'll get home safely. But personally, enough Bad Stuff that I can't see coming or do anything about seems to find me, so whenever possible, I prefer to NOT tempt fate. :wink:

 

[Verndog]

... so whenever possible, I prefer to NOT tempt fate. :wink:

Exactly. If the feature isn't really bothering you then why take the chance to begin with? If it's starting to get in your way, or if you strongly believe it is a potential liability, then consider the odds and make the call. We have the freedom to do so thankfully. 8)

One other counterpoint to Ayoob's point about "knowing more then the manufacturer". Why did Ruger make it sooo dang easy to remove?? Answer---because they know it's a highly debateable feature. :wink:

 

[ArmedinAZ]

One other counterpoint to Ayoob's point about "knowing more then the manufacturer". Why did Ruger make it sooo dang easy to remove?? Answer---because they know it's a highly debateable feature. :wink:

More likely because it's the easiest way to manufacture and assemble it. Do you know of any other safety feature on a firearm intentionally made to be removed?

These threads are always entertaining. Someone always knows better than the acknowledged experts in the field. And claims the right to do as they choose. And have every right to do so.

Speaking of legal issues, I've taken SD classes at a nationally recognized "school" and was told the following:

If you are involved in an SD shooting be prepared to spend $100,000 in court. They get lots of data from actual incidents and costs are more often more rather than less.

If you carry you should have $1 million of personal liability coverage. See above.

You should have a lawyer who handles SD cases on retainer or at the very least make contact with a lawyer who can and will represent you on short notice. A phone number out of a magazine ad is next to worthless.

By all means do what you think is best but don't try to minimize the advise of widely known experts.

 

[Verndog]

...By all means do what you think is best but don't try to minimize the advise of widely known experts.

Not sure if this was aimed at me or not but, my counterpoint was not to the actual expert (Ayoob), it was to his quoting the prosecution stating "they think they know more then the manufacturer". Ayoob did not say he believed it to be a bad idea for safety, just that he did not want to battle the lawyers. Point is... possibly the manufacturer does know something more, and made it easily removeable.