Deactivating a Magazine Safety - Legal Ramifications?

[Suvorov]

I realize this tends to be a topic with a lot of opinions. I did a search here and my search foo didn't bring up anything and would like to know what the more typically more informed members of this forum have to say.

My situation is that I recently purchased a LEO trade in Sig P229 that has a rare Sig magazine safety. My intent was to put a SRT trigger in the gun but the magazine safety interferes with the SRT sear. Calls to Sig factory CS was not really helpful just them telling me that they can't install the SRT in these guns.

Upon reading about and looking at the safety mechanism, deactivating the safety and thus making room for the SRT trigger is a quick job with a Dremil tool or file. What has me hesitant is what kind of legal ramifications am I going to potentially see by deactivating this safety in my Sig?

I know that it is advised to leave the magazine safety alone in Browning High Powers, but given that 99%+ of all Sigs do not have magazine safeties, I don't see how deactivating it would even be noticed. It isn't like I'm putting the pistol in a configuration that isn't used by LEO agencies, but given the spin of the Sanford FL incident, I can see how deactivating a magazine safety might be used against someone.

Thoughts? :confused:

[Wendell]

http://www.thegunzone.com/ayoob/magliato-ayoob.html

[KevinB]

Everyone I know deactivated the Mag Safety in BHP's -- I had Novak take it of a gun they did for me years ago -- just needed to weld up the trigger bar a bit to help with the reset length then.

As long as the weapon is still safe, I would not sweat it - but I would rather completely replace with OEM parts if one could.

*while I took the Sig P22X armorers course a few years ago, I don't recall the mag safety ever being mentioned and prior to this thread did not know a model existed with it.

[Suvorov]

*while I took the Sig P22X armorers course a few years ago, I don't recall the mag safety ever being mentioned and prior to this thread did not know a model existed with it.

Neither did I until I got the pistol home and took it apart for it's new (old) gun pre-fire cleaning :o

[jlw]

Taking out the mag safety isn't going to turn a clean shoot into a bad one.

[ToddG]

The only potential liability you might consider when removing a mag safety would result if the firearm unintentionally shot someone (in your hands or otherwise) with a magazine out of the gun.

[Nephrology]

I would sell the SIG to a collector-type and just buy a new gun....if only because it prevents you from having to lean too heavily on your dremel skills.

[Ed L]

I would not worry about removing the safety that isn't normally present in the gun of that model since the gun has other safeties and is safe without that particular one.

But I would be concerned about my mechanical abilities to remove the safety and have the gun function reliably and safely afterwards. But that is just me.


http://www.thegunzone.com/ayoob/magliato-ayoob.html

At the risk of completely sidelining this thread, there is more to it than Ayoob initially wrote thanks to the information available on the internet.

First, the Magliato claimed that he had cocked the revolver and it accidentally discharged. The judge in the case held that self defense was a claim limited to deliberate shootings and the defendent in this case claimed it was an accidental shooting.

If you look at the following link it provides a detailed description of the shooting in question, as well as lesser known info about the circumstances that led up to it:http://www.leagle.com/decision/1985376110AD2d266_1333:


The defense version differs somewhat. Defendant did not dispute that he drew his weapon and cocked it. However, he contended that his weapon could fire under the slightest pressure and that immediately prior to the firing of the weapon, a car passed close to Giani, brushing him back. This incident so unnerved defendant that he accidentally exerted pressure on the trigger sufficient to discharge the weapon.

The shooting came about after a fender bender where the person who was later killed was a passenger in a car that had a minor fender bender with the car being driven by the Magliato. The car not stop after the fender bender and the Magliato had to chase after them in his car. Everyone stopped at a light and both parties got out of their cars and exchanged threats and vulgarities, with the person who would later be shot waving a nightstick at Magliato and a person who was a passenger in Magliato's car. The light changed, everyone got back in their cars and drove away.

Magliato followed them to where they parked their car and since he could not find a police officer he returned to his apartment, got his gun, and then drove back to where the other person's car was parked. Magliato got out of his car with his gun, while his passenger went to a nearby phonebooth to call the police. Then he saw one of the people who had been in the car, and this person threatened him with a nightstick again, leading to the shooting.

Ayoob teaches that lethal force is to only be applied situations where there is the unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily injury.

As Nyeti has written before, you want to be seen as a victim not a participant.

Though a shooting itself my be justified by the immediate circumstances, it is hard to argue that the situation was unavoidable when you went home to get your gun and then returned to face someone with whom you had a prior confrontation. That is hardly doing everything you can to avoid a situation. Absent some type of extenuating circumstances, it will generally not go down well in court.

[GardoneVT]

There is a risk of complications in court whenever a safety device is disengaged on a firearm.

Why?Because a "jury of our peers" will be anything but.It is a sad piece of irony that jury selection will deny LE,military,or proficient shooters access to your case.Therefore,the 12 who will decide your fate for the next 16-20 years will know nothing to less-than-nothing about guns.This is a fact a competent DA *will* exploit for their own ends-hence the "reckless man deactivated a safety device" argument.

Picture twelve of your gun-ignorant co-workers trying YOUR self defense case,and ask yourself if they'd understand at face value your choice to remove the mag disconnect.Mine sure wouldn't, not without at length exposition by expert witnesses and my legal counsel.While the risk of conviction would be low,that in-court lesson on firearms safety is funded out of YOUR pocket at $400 per hour.You'll walk away from the charges facing a $100,000+ legal bill and impending bankruptcy.

Your kids' college fund,your small businesses,your retirement accounts,your savings,that nice Corvette in the driveway-history.Wiped out because you had to educate 12 CNN watching jurors about the intricacies of Sig Sauer magazine safeties and trigger pull weight.

You'll have enough problems to grapple with after a self defense incident.Don't give some lowlife hoplophobe DA a way to ruin you and your family's future,financially or criminally. While there's almost no accounts of gun owners going to jail because of a "deactivated safety" argument,there are many citizens and police officers who were rendered destitute after a long legal battle to clear their names.

[jlw]

Someone please post a case citation to me where the prosecution tested the magazine disconnect, found it disabled, and then based a prosecution on that evidence. I would really like to read the case.

[Suvorov]

How "thoroughly" do they go over a firearm after it has been used in a defensive shooting? :confused:

Would your average "Abby" from NCIS realize that a Sig P229 had a disconnect to begin with?

I can definitely see how putting a hair trigger on a firearm would get you in trouble. I can see how disabling a safety on a pistol designed with a safety would be bad. In this case, the Sig would realistically just be put back into its original configuration as used by LEO agencies across America.

[GardoneVT]

How "thoroughly" do they go over a firearm after it has been used in a defensive shooting? :confused:

Would your average "Abby" from NCIS realize that a Sig P229 had a disconnect to begin with?

As a matter of procedure, guns taken in the course of an investigation will be ballistics tested at the PD or some state-funded lab, at which point any modifications to the firearm will be noted for reference. The gun itself will also be passed around to the jury as an article of evidence-this took place when Luis Alvarez was tried on the "hair trigger leading to manslaughter" argument.

As applied to the OPs case, the state- should they pursue charges- will get a build record from Sig Sauer showing the weapon shipped with a magazine disconnect safety. When the lab tests the gun and finds it not present, bad news bears. Afterwards "Abby" will be told by the prosecutor that said removal of a safety device constituted proof the OP is a deranged maniac looking for a reason to gun down a poor, innocent honor student who went into the wrong house at 3AM.

Sure, such drivel can be countered, but why spend the $$ if you don't have to? I'll stress again that people who want to see a "conviction" based on this problem have missed the point . I doubt anyone's been "convicted" of a crime because of a "hair trigger" argument. But rest assured, many righteous defenders have spent months in custody and years after the acquittal impoverished over the matter. I don't know about you guys, but I want my court case to be an "In and Out" affair, not a drawn out legal ordeal over semantics of a $5 part change that results in the loss of my home, property , and assets.

[jlw]

Come on, folks. Modifications are only going to be an issue if their is a claim of malfunction in an accidental shooting.

[DocGKR]

"The only potential liability you might consider when removing a mag safety would result if the firearm unintentionally shot someone (in your hands or otherwise) with a magazine out of the gun."

This.

I ALWAYS take the mag safety out of ANY pistol I have ever used if the manufacturer offers it both ways--all you have done is gone from one OEM approved version to another.

[KeeFus]

How "thoroughly" do they go over a firearm after it has been used in a defensive shooting? :confused:
.

Quite well actually.

[Rj5284]

The only potential liability you might consider when removing a mag safety would result if the firearm unintentionally shot someone (in your hands or otherwise) with a magazine out of the gun.

I would say this is as accurate an answer you will get

[GardoneVT]

Come on, folks. Modifications are only going to be an issue if their is a claim of malfunction in an accidental shooting.

Which is exactly what a dirty lawyer will argue.

O?!How can an attorney claim you accidently shot someone you intentionally caught trying to kill you?Its simple.

They say you made a mistake.That you cocked the weapon somehow and negligently shot Joe Scumbag. Therefore you didn't shoot in self defense,because those two hits to the chest were an ACCIDENT.Hello manslaughter .

Being able to establish a pattern of negligence is part of the case.Kitchen table gun smithing your carry pistol is an excellent way to do that,as nothing says "RAMBO" to the uninitiated quite like the image of a gun nut in a basement plotting doom and gloom.

Court is a battlefield .Just like one prepares for the possibility of a gunfight ,anyone who carries a weapon should evaluate the legal environment of where they live and prepare accordingly.The OP may live in a state like Texas where he'll not even be charged with a crime-or he may live in New Jersey where the NRA is held in less regard then Hamas.

At the end of the day,well have to walk into court alone-the mall ninjas of the world will not be in the jury box.

[jlw]

Which is exactly what a dirty lawyer will argue.

O?!How can an attorney claim you accidently shot someone you intentionally caught trying to kill you?Its simple.

They say you made a mistake.That you cocked the weapon somehow and negligently shot Joe Scumbag. Therefore you didn't shoot in self defense,because those two hits to the chest were an ACCIDENT.Hello manslaughter .

Being able to establish a pattern of negligence is part of the case.Kitchen table gun smithing your carry pistol is an excellent way to do that,as nothing says "RAMBO" to the uninitiated quite like the image of a gun nut in a basement plotting doom and gloom.

Court is a battlefield .Just like one prepares for the possibility of a gunfight ,anyone who carries a weapon should evaluate the legal environment of where they live and prepare accordingly.The OP may live in a state like Texas where he'll not even be charged with a crime-or he may live in New Jersey where the NRA is held in less regard then Hamas.

At the end of the day,well have to walk into court alone-the mall ninjas of the world will not be in the jury box.


Nope. You have a lovely evening.

[JBP55]

Which is exactly what a dirty lawyer will argue.

O?!How can an attorney claim you accidently shot someone you intentionally caught trying to kill you?Its simple.

They say you made a mistake.That you cocked the weapon somehow and negligently shot Joe Scumbag. Therefore you didn't shoot in self defense,because those two hits to the chest were an ACCIDENT.Hello manslaughter .

Being able to establish a pattern of negligence is part of the case.Kitchen table gun smithing your carry pistol is an excellent way to do that,as nothing says "RAMBO" to the uninitiated quite like the image of a gun nut in a basement plotting doom and gloom.

Court is a battlefield .Just like one prepares for the possibility of a gunfight ,anyone who carries a weapon should evaluate the legal environment of where they live and prepare accordingly.The OP may live in a state like Texas where he'll not even be charged with a crime-or he may live in New Jersey where the NRA is held in less regard then Hamas.

At the end of the day,well have to walk into court alone-the mall ninjas of the world will not be in the jury box.



Just curious if you are a Professional Attorney or just an I Attorney.

[walkin' trails]

I have to the take the line,."why invite trouble?" As the recent public specticle of a murder trial in Florida demonstrated, there might be other factors being drug into play that would take something and blow it way out of proportion. I didn't even realize that Sig produced pistols with mag disconnects. Your experience trying to get a straight answer out of the factory is similar to my experience with another manufacturer over a scout scope mount on a bolt rifle. The best situation would be if Sig was to perform the modification at the factory. But in this day and age, it might just be better to find another pistol if it's going to serve anything more than home defense.

[Rich]

I happen to favor the mag safety like with the 3rd gen S&W.

Plus never have I needed to single feed a cartridge.

If I was in LE or OC ? I would want a safety and the mag dis. . During a gun grab I would have a few more options.

Otherwise with the Sig P229 I have heard of some problems from a LE / Sig armorer .

I try to keep in touch with him about how well are sigs doing. After hearing about the 2005 problems.

BTW he reported good news with his department and 3 others. But that's been a few years back.

[Rich]

This.

if the manufacturer offers it both ways--all you have done is gone from one OEM approved version to another.

I agree !

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Just my opinion - Removing safeties on a carry gun is a poor idea.

Everyone always thinks it will not be an issue in a "good shoot" - but what does that mean?

That means at the end of the process, your shooting is not found criminally or civilly liable.

So, let's look at some common problems which can make that determination a bit...oh...difficult to discern...

1) An entangled shooting. The classic shivworks "FUT". Entry wounds at weird angles, shots in the back, and possible use of edged weapons to retain someone's gun.

2) Your assailant is a 'minor'. A 265#, 6'4" linebacker that is 17 years, 11.5 months old...but a minor. (His 12th birthday picture will be used.)

3) A cross racial shooting. You are a "non-minority" as defined by the media. He is a "minority" as defined by the media.

On top of all these very likely problems, do you really want to add into the mix "He deactivated the safety on his gun!!"

Didn't think so.

I'm not going to address the "dirty lawyer" arguments about what the bar will do to win in a case.

Just understand that what YOU see as a dirty trick by a lawyer desperate to win when he has no case may end up in an appellate decision under the heading of: "The jury could have reasonably found the following facts..." in a decision upholding your conviction.

[WDW]

Like someone else said, I'd sell it to a "collector" & get a standard version if it bothers you or you really want the SRT installed.

[DocGKR]

Mitchell, Esq--If a manufacturer offers a pistol both with and without the various safeties; trains armorers on how to switch between the different versions; and then sells the parts to armorers to accomplish this, I don't see how shifting from one OEM version to another OEM version will prove a problem...

[ToddG]

Just my opinion - Removing safeties on a carry gun is a poor idea.

You carry a Glock, correct? There are safety devices available for the Glock which you don't have (presumably) on your gun. The Cominolli safety comes immediately to mind. Do you use a Saf-T-Block? These are devices which, while they may not be standard from the factory, are available to perform the function of making your gun safer. By your reasoning, they could become an issue somewhere under some circumstance in some case. Yet you, as an experienced lawyer and trained shooter, don't use them. Why? My guess is because you can very easily articulate how they would be a detriment to some aspect of your shooting.

Glock offers guns with a 12# trigger pull to improve safety. Do you have a 12# trigger pull in your Glock? If not, why not? Because you can articulate reasons why that factory safety option is a detriment to the way you want to use your gun.

People have been pinning grip safeties on 1911s and removing mag disconnect safeties on BHPs for a hundred years and eighty years, respectively, give or take. Articulating why isn't going to be that difficult for someone.

Removing an oddball mag disconnect from a SIG, restoring it to the same configuration as literally 99.9% of all SIGs, restoring it to the configuration used by the SEALs, the Secret Service, the Air Marshals, by countless local and state police, etc., etc. is going to be even easier to articulate. I imagine there are enough guys on this forum who've testified as experts who could list a dozen justifications without breaking a sweat.

In your experience or to your direct knowledge, how many cases have hinged on an otherwise justified self-defender removing an optional safety device from his handgun? How many times has such an issue even been raised in court?

You created some legitimate worse-case scenarios (shooting a minor, cross-racial shooting). Both applied in the Zimmerman case which we saw get blown massively out of proportion without any function or feature of the pistol being an issue. So first, that tells us that having a "clean" gun isn't going to save you in such a situation. Second, do you believe that if Zimmerman had disabled the drop safety on his Kahr "to get a better trigger pull" that it would have changed the outcome of the case? I'm not asking if it would have fed the media storm because candidly that's unimportant... he was already being excoriated by the media. I'm asking if you honestly believe he'd be sitting in jail right now if he'd altered the safety parameters of his pistol.

[BLR]

I really put this in the same category as carrying handloads.

Any decent attorney and expert will put down the whole "He's obviously evil with evil intent because he carried a super deadly handload/deactivated his mag disconnect."

The question is - Is the grief you will get worth a smoother trigger? And the additional cost?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I'm asking if you honestly believe he'd be sitting in jail right now if he'd altered the safety parameters of his pistol.

It is my personal belief based on my training and experience that removing a safety device from a weapon opens the door to an accusation of negligence, while retaining a weapon in, for lack of a better term, "functional factory standard configuration" does not.

While safety options for said weapon may exist, either as aftermarket or from the factory, a weapon at issue in in a configuration in which it left the factory is just that - a weapon in stock configuration.

I feel it it is a lot more likely to face the accusation that as person who deactivates safeties, you are therefore an unsafe individual, than it is to deal with the accusation that you are a person who chose not to go above and beyond when it came to adding safeties to a weapon to prevent accidental discharge, and are therefore an unsafe individual.

I do not see it as an issue of "Could he have made the weapon more safe?" but an issue of "Did he make the weapon less safe?"

I believe most firearm manufacturers have dealt with the issue of litigating if the designs they have marketed are safe for their intended use; (I believe Glock is litigating this issue at this time in several suits) they do have, at the least, substantial support for the premise that the weapon they have sold, while not without it's drawbacks, is safe for it's intended use - personal protection.

Conversely, when you take a weapon that was (arguably) safe, and take safety features off of it - regardless of the actual impact on the events at hand - you do raise the issue of making a weapon less safe.

One has to explain why he did something that the manufacturer of the weapon almost certainly would say should not be done, the second will be able to say he was within the common course of practice for the users of said weapon.

I believe if the prosecutor in Zimmerman had decided to make a negligence case out of the shooting instead of an intentional murder case, and had a weapon with a safety removed, he would likely have gotten manslaughter from the jury.

I have trouble with the idea that we can simply look at a case of "Justified self defense" retrospectively and replace factors such as the presence or absence of a safety on a firearm and say the case hinges on that one factor.

I feel a safety feature removed would have changed the course of a case's path, and in some cases, generated a different result.

A case someone may feel comfortable taking to a jury would perhaps end with a plea, or a guilty verdict because the prosecution, instead of an intentional murder case, may have pursued a negligence case, perhaps with varying degrees of success.

The gun with a safety feature removed opens up pathways of attack I would not like to have to deal with, and for that reason, I think it's a bad idea.

I hope I haven't gone off point and did not address your question.

[ToddG]

I believe if the prosecutor in Zimmerman had decided to make a negligence case out of the shooting instead of an intentional murder case, and had a weapon with a safety removed, he would likely have gotten manslaughter from the jury.

Wow. I just don't see it. Zimmerman admitted to purposely shooting Martin. Where is the negligence? What duty of care did he owe Martin at that point and how did he breach it?


I believe most firearm manufacturers have dealt with the issue of litigating if the designs they have marketed are safe for their intended use; (I believe Glock is litigating this issue at this time in several suits) they do have, at the least, substantial support for the premise that the weapon they have sold, while not without it's drawbacks, is safe for it's intended use - personal protection.

This very fact is what forces me to a different conclusion: if Glock thinks a gun with a 5.5# trigger is safe for personal protection and LE use and military use, sells guns equipped in such a manner, and makes parts readily available for end users to set their own guns up that way, then my gun can be perfectly "safe" set up that way regardless of whether I happened to buy it second hand from a guy who thought a 12# trigger was the cat's kitten. Same is true for the OP: SIG is going to say that their guns, sans mag disconnect, are perfectly safe.

[jlw]

How is negligence an issue if a person is admitting to and affirming that they intended to shoot?


"He was coming towards me with a knife and yelling that he was going to kill me. I sidestepped, drew my pistol, and fired. I shot him because I was in fear for my life."


Lawyer: No, you shot him accidentally because you removed a magazine disconnect.


Huh?

[ToddG]

Raising the follow on question, how is the removal of a mag safety relevant to negligence when someone is shot by a gun with a magazine inserted?

[jlw]

Raising the follow on question, how is the removal of a mag safety relevant to negligence when someone is shot by a gun with a magazine inserted?

Dang. That was going to be my rebuttal to any counter arguments, but you already hit it.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Raising the follow on question, how is the removal of a mag safety relevant to negligence when someone is shot by a gun with a magazine inserted?

I cannot quote the exact venue, but years ago Massad Ayoob wrote of an individual, an attorney or business owner IIRC, where the fact that he'd removed the magazine disconnect in his Browning Hi-Power WAS used as an argument that he was reckless and unsafe. The BHP was not even the weapon used in the shooting. He wound up prevailing in his case, but it was an argument that took time and $$ to counter. I believe that Mas was on the defense team.

[ToddG]

It's difficult to discuss facts of a case without the facts of the case.

[Suvorov]

I truly appreciate everyone who has posted here. One thing for sure is that I don't think there are any other forums where as much good information on both sides would come out. Got a fair amount to digest.

The argument that deactivating a safety could be used by the other side to present me as reckless certainly has merit. I do however think that in this case simply placing the gun into another factory configuration is different than removing a safety from a pistol that is only offered with a safety (such as a P35). Would a person who purchased a Glock with a NY trigger be under the same liability if they later put lighter spings in their Glock? What about an M&P owner who puts in Apex parts?

Either way the way I see it is just like every other aspect of life where there is risk involved, one has to weigh the options and make informed decisions that balance risk an needs. This discussion has certainly helped.

[Rich]

OP

Does your P229 have any markings stating it has a mag disconnect.

I've seen a few S&W pistols that have been engraved stating Warning that it can be fired without mag!

If I had a Pistol that was engraved . I would leave it alone.


Other than That Im with the Doc on this.

[GardoneVT]

Raising the follow on question, how is the removal of a mag safety relevant to negligence when someone is shot by a gun with a magazine inserted?

Nothing,factually speaking.Yet,an unsavory attorney won't let the facts of the situation obstruct their case.Massad Ayoob,an experienced court witness who's been doing that longer then I've been alive, has cited instances of prejudiced prosecutors using evidence to paint a false picture of the defendant.Ergo,a medical examiners autopsy revealing gunshots to the back is presented by the prosecution as "malicious intent."

The defense then says,quite factually,that the suspect turned before the defender could stop shooting.But this discourse is risky-because now the jury has an alternate story they can accept compared to the truth.

What all this has to do with mag disconnects? Simple .Deactivating a safety can be presented by the prosecution as proof the crime victim was in fact "looking for trouble" by modifying a deadly weapon in his evil basement lair.Sure ,us gun guys know why its a good idea-but David Sevigny won't be in your jury pool.

I realize the likelihood of facing this kind of ordeal is low:but it is NOT zero.For the few of us who have to shoot in self defense the legal system will do what is right.BUT.....as the saying goes,sh--t happens.I'd rather carry a gun and not risk leaving the fate of myself and my family to a government laywer's political biases.

[ToddG]

Nothing,factually speaking.

/thread ... but obviously it isn't, so...


Yet,an unsavory attorney won't let the facts of the situation obstruct their case.

I think we can take it as read that you believe there are evil attorneys. I'm also going to assume, though you chose not to respond, that you're not one yourself. Can you tell us what kind of personal experience you have dealing with the criminal justice system viz-a-vis firearms used in self-defense? I understand you can quote stuff from Mas. I'm asking if you have any other basis for your extremely strong beliefs than your interpretation of his interpretation of discrete events in specific cases.


Ergo,a medical examiners autopsy revealing gunshots to the back is presented by the prosecution as "malicious intent."

This was discussed here quite recently. One of the great things that Mas's accounts bring about is an awareness of these problems so that folks can -- and do -- deal with it appropriately. In fact, in this case, there is now genuine scientific data (thanks to the Force Science Institute) showing that people can in fact fire a round into someone's back without being malicious.


What all this has to do with mag disconnects? Simple .Deactivating a safety can be presented by the prosecution as proof the crime victim was in fact "looking for trouble" by modifying a deadly weapon in his evil basement lair.Sure ,us gun guys know why its a good idea-but David Sevigny won't be in your jury pool.

Actually, I know Dave is a registered voter so he could quite possibly be in someone's jury pool.

That aside, your interpretation of what could happen doesn't ring true to me based on my first hand experience with prosecuting violent felons who committed crimes with guns. For example, can you tell me how it would be relevant to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the incident that he had removed a device from his gun days, maybe even years earlier? How would you get that past a defendant's motion to suppress?


I realize the likelihood of facing this kind of ordeal is low:but it is NOT zero.

It's pretty darn close to zero in this case, actually. I'm assuming you drive on highways, eat beef, and do lots of other things that have some chance of resulting in injury. So you're clearly familiar with the difference between risk avoidance and risk aversion. Your response to the mag disconnect question is much more the latter than the former.


I'd rather carry a gun and not risk leaving the fate of myself and my family to a government laywer's political biases.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the prosecutor who catches your case is politically motivated to see you hang, do you really think a single piece of irrelevant -- and most likely inadmissible -- evidence is going to matter? Look at the Zimmerman case: factory configuration gun as well as any of us know but he got raked over the coals for a year. I'm still not the least bit convinced that having a tuned pistol would have changed the jury result one bit.

[Ed L]

You'll have enough problems to grapple with after a self defense incident.Don't give some lowlife hoplophobe DA a way to ruin you and your family's future,financially or criminally. While there's almost no accounts of gun owners going to jail because of a "deactivated safety" argument,there are many citizens and police officers who were rendered destitute after a long legal battle to clear their names.

Well, if there are many citizens and police officers who were rendered destitute after a long legal battle to clear their names because they deactivated a safety and then used the gun in a deliberate self defense shooting, you should be able to name them as well as their cases. Otherwise how are you able to make the claim of their existence?

Also, how many classes have you taken with Ayoob?

[GardoneVT]

/thread ... but obviously it isn't, so...



I think we can take it as read that you believe there are evil attorneys. I'm also going to assume, though you chose not to respond, that you're not one yourself. Can you tell us what kind of personal experience you have dealing with the criminal justice system viz-a-vis firearms used in self-defense? I understand you can quote stuff from Mas. I'm asking if you have any other basis for your extremely strong beliefs than your interpretation of his interpretation of discrete events in specific cases.



This was discussed here quite recently. One of the great things that Mas's accounts bring about is an awareness of these problems so that folks can -- and do -- deal with it appropriately. In fact, in this case, there is now genuine scientific data (thanks to the Force Science Institute) showing that people can in fact fire a round into someone's back without being malicious.



Actually, I know Dave is a registered voter so he could quite possibly be in someone's jury pool.

That aside, your interpretation of what could happen doesn't ring true to me based on my first hand experience with prosecuting violent felons who committed crimes with guns. For example, can you tell me how it would be relevant to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the incident that he had removed a device from his gun days, maybe even years earlier? How would you get that past a defendant's motion to suppress?



It's pretty darn close to zero in this case, actually. I'm assuming you drive on highways, eat beef, and do lots of other things that have some chance of resulting in injury. So you're clearly familiar with the difference between risk avoidance and risk aversion. Your response to the mag disconnect question is much more the latter than the former.



Assuming for the sake of argument that the prosecutor who catches your case is politically motivated to see you hang, do you really think a single piece of irrelevant -- and most likely inadmissible -- evidence is going to matter? Look at the Zimmerman case: factory configuration gun as well as any of us know but he got raked over the coals for a year. I'm still not the least bit convinced that having a tuned pistol would have changed the jury result one bit.

I'll start by saying that I'm just another ex military vet who carries a gun.No more,no less.I'm no attorney just a guy whose read some books by people who've BTDT.Feel free to disregard anything I type thus if those facts trouble you.

My take on it is this-the entire reason this website exists is preparation.If we made decisions based on probability alone,then we should shut down this webpage and take up bullseye shooting.The odds of either of us having to shoot someone in justified anger is so low that a credible argument exists for us to abandon handgun training .

That being said,I doubt that revelation will prompt you to sell your defensive arms ToddG.It certainly won't suffice for me.Why?Because some consequences are so horrific that we should stand ready to face them,even if they are unlikely.Death and injury from an attack on your person falls into this category .
I would submit that being ruined by a six figure legal bill and a wrongful death suit also fits that category,if not a seriously.I'd rather be alive and $600k in debt then dead,but avoiding both outcomes is a better goal.If we are in court as Zimmerman was,Lady Probability already has it out for us.Why give the other side another way to ruin you? Sure ,its a statistical unlikelihood-but so's having to shoot someone .

If we prepare for worst case scenario gunfights with malfunction drills ,we should prepare for worst case "malfunction drills" in court as well.It is not an attitude you need to agree with-if the flag flies us alone will individually face the music.

[ToddG]

If we prepare for worst case scenario gunfights with malfunction drills ,we should prepare for worst case "malfunction drills" in court as well.

Your analogy is a good one and proves why we differ on this issue. Malfunction drills are practiced because people have experienced malfunctions in real life and there are instances where people have attributed malfunctions in combat to death and serious injury.

In contrast, I've yet to hear of an instance in which an otherwise lawful shooting was deemed felonious because someone disabled a safety. I've yet to see a case in which a disabled safety played any role in the decision of (or was even introduced to a) jury. Cite a case if I'm wrong.

So when we talk about probabilities, yes, I worry about things that have a small probability of happening and have proven to bite people in the butt even though they're unlikely, but I don't worry about things that are merely theoretical what-ifs from people who don't actually understand the legal system they're busy worrying about.

Look, if you want to be extra careful, that's fine. No one is telling you to disable the drop safety on your gun anymore than they'd tell you to drive around without a seatbelt. But that caution doesn't translate into experience or understanding of actual court procedure so telling other people they're making a mistake is, as the saying goes, getting out of your lane.

[GardoneVT]

Your analogy is a good one and proves why we differ on this issue. Malfunction drills are practiced because people have experienced malfunctions in real life and there are instances where people have attributed malfunctions in combat to death and serious injury.

In contrast, I've yet to hear of an instance in which an otherwise lawful shooting was deemed felonious because someone disabled a safety. I've yet to see a case in which a disabled safety played any role in the decision of (or was even introduced to a) jury. Cite a case if I'm wrong.

So when we talk about probabilities, yes, I worry about things that have a small probability of happening and have proven to bite people in the butt even though they're unlikely, but I don't worry about things that are merely theoretical what-ifs from people who don't actually understand the legal system they're busy worrying about.

Look, if you want to be extra careful, that's fine. No one is telling you to disable the drop safety on your gun anymore than they'd tell you to drive around without a seatbelt. But that caution doesn't translate into experience or understanding of actual court procedure so telling other people they're making a mistake is, as the saying goes, getting out of your lane.



I'll make the observation that being in a good shoot doesn't mean the defender walks away scot-free. Even the "cleanest" shoots still trigger long legal ordeals, especially if the media bends the story.

Here's a quote from Mas' latest article on a self-defense case in Virginia.

http://americanhandgunner.com/fist-vs-gun-disparity-of-force/

Autopsy revealed eight gunshot wound tracks from seven bullets, all but one clearly entering behind lateral midline. Trial began on Feb. 4, 2013, in the court of Circuit Judge Eric O’Briant in Logan, W.Va. The prosecution argued a jealous husband had murdered a perceived suitor of his wife, shooting the unarmed man several times in the back — and arming himself before the confrontation constituted the element of premeditation.
The night of the shooting, five spent .45 casings were recovered from in front of the porch. The following afternoon, two more were discovered near where the dying man had fallen; this, the prosecution maintained, meant Gunn must have walked 40 feet forward and fired two more execution shots into the “victim,” who had collapsed and was rendered helpless.

That's the prosecution's "version" of events.

The actual series of events:

He was glad his kids were asleep then and didn’t hear any of it. Fearing it would escalate again, he told his wife to take the boys into another room. Then, because he had every reason to be genuinely in fear of his life, he took his pistol from its high resting place and tucked it into his waistband behind his right hip.

The gun was a Ruger P345 he bought used from a friend a few years ago. Its hammer was de-cocked on a live round — the way he always carried this gun, with the lever up and off safe. Having been told all his life to load magazines one round short of capacity to save their springs and preserve reliability, his 8-round magazines had seven Remington 185-grain jacketed hollowpoint .45 ACP cartridges. After chambering a round, he never bothered to top it off; meaning a pistol capable of holding 8+1 rounds had only seven.

Pausing at the door, Gunn then stepped out onto the dimly lit porch area and closed the door behind him. Part of him hoped the man had simply come to apologize for his previous outburst. No such luck.

This was the first time he had seen the dreaded Mr. Phist face-to-face. The man towered over him, looking every bit of the 300-plus pounds he’d been described, and launched into a tirade. Philst’s wife had just kicked him out and he was holding Gunn responsible for ending his marriage of more than 20 years.

He angrily repeated his previous, ominous threat, “I’ll beat the life out of you!”

A punch came out of the darkness from nowhere, hammering into the right side of Gunn’s face like the kick of a mule. He felt his partial plate dislodge from the painful and stunning impact.

Reeling back and acutely aware of the situation — knowing his wife and children were inside and certain this enraged giant was not going to stop — Gunn reached for the Ruger with his right hand, and as soon as it cleared his belt, he opened fire on the enraged assailant.

Gunn then realized the big man was running away from him down the side of his property and watched him fall at the backend of the house. Not knowing what else to do, Gunn walked back inside and numbly placed his empty, slide-locked P345 on the kitchen counter.

This is one example of how a clear self-defense incident can be warped by a bent lawyer into a horrific perversion of actual events. At the trial they even tried to say the .45 ACP round was a deadly man-killer bullet-a statement Mas refuted by stating local LE at the time carried the S&W 4506 in the same caliber.

That's not the only case either.

Lets take another Ayoob -documented incident, this time an OIS .


Both cops draw their pistols. Mun holds his in a low ready. Marshall steps between Tran and the children, to shield them with his body if she attacks them, since it is fresh in his mind that this call began as a potential child abuse case. His left hand is stretched out behind him to keep the children back and clear, and his SIG-Sauer P226 is in his right hand, muzzle down, finger clear of the trigger.

She moves along the room divider toward them, the steel gleaming menac- ingly in her hand. Marshall yells at her, “Drop the knife!” She is now only eight feet away from them. But she disobeys the command. Instead of stopping or dropping the weapon, her forward move- ment continues, her arm coming up shoulder high, as if to either chop down- wards or throw the weapon. The cops can wait no longer. Mun is bringing his gun up on her and is about to fire when he hears a single shot.

Marshall has fired first, coming up one handed. A single shot blasts from the muzzle of his 9mm, and Tran jerks back- ward and falls supine on the floor, the blade flying from her hand to her right.
Clear cut clean shoot, right?


.... I’ve had the opportunity to examine the particular dao bao that Tran was holding when she was killed. It was, unquestionably, a deadly weapon. The authorities sent Tran’s dao bao to a cut- lery manufacturer, with instructions to take a couple of genuine brand-new cleavers and compare them in terms of sharpness and cutting power. The cutlery professionals determined that Tran’s weapon came dead in the middle between the two new, dedicated cleavers in its ability to cut and inflict wounds.However, the media called her weapon a “vegetable peeler.”


THE GRAND JURY SPEAKS.


It has been suggested the officers should have kicked the knife out of her hand. The Grand Jury learns a little about the speed of edged weapons in human hands, particularly the very fast hands of lithe and compact people, and that trying to kick a knife out of a fast moving hand is like trying to emulate the fantasy martial artists running up walls in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. They have learned that shooting to wound or shooting a knife out of a moving hand is a similar movie fantasy. It had been suggested that since the officers wore body armor, they were invulnerable; the Grand Jury learns that the armor covers only 30-percent or less of the body, and can be stabbed through by weapons like the 8" butcher knife Officer Mun reasonably mistook the dao bao for. The Grand Jury heard evidence for seven full days. On Thursday, October 30, after three hours of deliberation, they returned No True Bill. In other words, they determined no crime had been com- mitted by San Jose Police Officer Chad



In both the above cases, the defensive incidents were "good shoots". In both cases, the only foul play committed was from the decedent. Yet, in both cases the good guy had to endure a long, agonizing ordeal in a courtroom after the fact. The legal system is no friend to us gun owners; while there may be no directly citeable case I can name which specifically cites the de-activation of a safety as a convicting factor, that doesn't mean its a good idea to risk it, at least for a carry gun. Another $500-$800 to carry a different gun is a lot cheaper then sweating 7 days of jury deliberations wondering if the 12 strangers cooped up in that room agree with you or not.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I think we can take it as read that you believe there are evil attorneys.

Like a certain unnamed individual who wont hook up brother counsel with a gadget?

Humm?

[ToddG]

I'll make the observation that being in a good shoot doesn't mean the defender walks away scot-free.

Nothing in either of those cases had anything whatsoever to do with the relevance of a disabled magazine safety in a firearm used in lawful, purposeful self-defense. In fact, in both cases you presented, the issue at hand was an interpretation of material fact: the location of the shooter when he shot the decedent in the first case, and the legitimacy of the weapon used by the decedent in the second.

The irony of so much irrelevant fact being presented as evidence that irrelevant fact can be presented as evidence... it may rip the universe in two!

[ToddG]

Like a certain unnamed individual who wont hook up brother counsel with a gadget?

I'm inactive.

Plus, I'd hate for you to change the safety aspects of your Glock and risk torture in the public square if, you know, an Evil Attorney decides you're, um, evil.

[Ed L]

GardoneVT,

You mention Ayoob a lot.

Exactly how many classes have you taken from him?

[Ed L]

Plus, I'd hate for you to change the safety aspects of your Glock and risk torture in the public square if, you know, an Evil Attorney decides you're, um, evil.

Touche'.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I'm inactive.

Plus, I'd hate for you to change the safety aspects of your Glock and risk torture in the public square if, you know, an Evil Attorney decides you're, um, evil.

Don't make me bite you and reinfect you with the L-virus.

[ScotchMan]

I come down on the side of GardoneVT and Mitchell, here. While I do believe that if it is a "clean shoot", you will get off, why give the prosecution additional arguments to use against you? Reading through this thread, I think the biggest disconnect between those arguing for and against the removal of the mag safety, is the difference between arguing facts and arguing a case.

There is no rule or law that the DA can only use facts to argue against you. The type of person you are can go a long way towards swaying a jury. Keep in mind, as GardoneVT pointed out a few times, the jury is not going to be anyone who has ever fired a gun. They will find out on the first day that you are a civilian who felt the need to carry a loaded firearm to the grocery store. What kind of maniac does that? Don't you know there are police for that kind of thing? I take my children to that store, and you're standing there in the juice aisle with a gun?! Right off the bat, you are going to be way behind the 8 ball, with an uphill battle to get the jury to see you as innocent. Can it be done, of course, but you are at a disadvantage. Why would you want to give the DA yet another argument to use against you? The jury will be biased against you, and will eat right out of the DA's hand while they go on about deactivating a factory safety device because the gun just wasn't dangerous enough the way the police and military use it.

I think a lot of the people on this forum are very intelligent and experienced about the subject matter of the site. When talking about a shooting incident, they will say things like "if you're not cheating you're not trying hard enough," and "take every tactical advantage you possibly can." But when talking about a legal battle, one which is just as serious and dangerous as a gun battle, they are willing to give huge advantages to the prosecution.

Maybe it will matter, maybe it won't. I think like most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, and it will just end up being another thing you have to fight and more money spent. But that's still a really scary thing to mess with...what if it does contribute to you going to prison? Kathy Jackson over on corneredcat.com said (paraphrasing), you've only won the fight if you escape with your life intact, and that includes your freedom and your wealth. If you survive the gunfight but spend the rest of your life in jail or bankrupt, what have you really won?

There are so many good carry guns out there without magazine safeties, especially Sigs, why take the risk? Get a gun that is set up the way you want it from the factory and just skip the whole quagmire of legal battles about safeties.

[JV_]

How do they verify the gun had a safety when they're offered both ways? Assuming it was converted with factory parts, that could be a difficult task.

Do they call the MFR and provide the SN to get a list of features? I've had guns with features that didn't match the box label, which brings up another issue.

[ScotchMan]

You might slip through the cracks if that is the case. A situation like with the Ruger SR series, where they are only offered with the safety, makes it a little more black and white.

[GardoneVT]

How do they verify the gun had a safety when they're offered both ways? Assuming it was converted with factory parts, that could be a difficult task.

Do they call the MFR and provide the SN to get a list of features? I've had guns with features that didn't match the box label, which brings up another issue.

To repeat my previous post, when the police take your weapon into custody they will test it for ballistics. At that point, a gunsmith or police technician will evaluate the piece. Any Buck Rodgers-type mods like 3.5lb connectors, Punisher slide plate covers, or deactivated safeties will be noted at that point.

The report is then sent to the DA , and down the rabbit hole we go. Alternatively, the police could call Sig directly with the Serial number and determine it had a MDS that way.

[JV_]

or deactivated safeties will be noted at that point. To repeat my post, how will they know if a gun HAD a safety if the gun was available in both configurations?


Alternatively, the police could call Sig directly with the Serial number and determine it had a MDS that way.Let me be more clear, specifically where previously where I pointed out a problem. What does one do if the label on the gun you bought is wrong, and features - like a thumb safety on an M&P, weren't actually on the gun you bought? S&W records show it has one, the gun didn't actually have one, and you didn't care at the time. Do you try and get S&W's records fixed? That seems unrealistic. I'm not speculating about this problem, it does exist with some M&Ps.

[GardoneVT]

To repeat my post, how will they know if a gun HAD a safety if the gun was available in both configurations?

Let me be more clear, specifically where previously where I pointed out a problem. What does one do if the label on the gun you bought is wrong, and features - like a thumb safety on an M&P, weren't actually on the gun you bought? S&W records show it has one, the gun didn't actually have one, and you didn't care at the time. Do you try and get S&W's records fixed? That seems unrealistic. I'm not speculating about this problem, it does exist with some M&Ps.

To answer both points, this is not a problem unique to M&Ps.When I bought my last pistol me and the FFL were in for a shock because the gun in the box didn't match the distributors label.BUT....the PD won't be checking your guns box if the SHTF.The box can say whatever it wants to,because the serial # stamped on the gun itself is what theyll use.THAT record is what will show the weapon shipped with a magazine disconnect.

Unless the company made a huge QC error ,its unlikely the authorities will not ID the precise origin of your carry weapon and the features it shipped with.

[JV_]

The box can say whatever it wants to,because the serial # stamped on the gun itself is what theyll use.THAT record is what will show the weapon shipped with a magazine disconnect.If I had your opinion on the implications of a safety removal, I'm not sure I'd be willing to assume it's only the box label that's wrong. IMO - If the box is wrong then the other records are probably wrong too.

Then you've got the issue of buying used guns...

Either way, we don't share a common opinion on the legal implications of safety modification - like a mag-disconnect.

[Byron]

As a skeptic, I find it really hard to get on board with hypothetical evidence. The whole, "Well issue A came up in case B, therefore issue X will most definitely come up in case Y" is far from persuasive.

I see other skeptics repeatedly asking for case citations, and I see a deafening silence in response. That's a pretty big red flag in my book.

Unless I glossed over a relevant portion of the thread, Sotex's post is the only one I've seen that actually references a real case where a magazine disconnect came up:

I cannot quote the exact venue, but years ago Massad Ayoob wrote of an individual, an attorney or business owner IIRC, where the fact that he'd removed the magazine disconnect in his Browning Hi-Power WAS used as an argument that he was reckless and unsafe. The BHP was not even the weapon used in the shooting. He wound up prevailing in his case, but it was an argument that took time and $$ to counter. I believe that Mas was on the defense team.

It's difficult to discuss facts of a case without the facts of the case.

Since Todd's point is well taken, I Googled around for more details and found this 2009 post from Ayoob:

The one case I've seen was one I was consulted on a number of years ago by Mark Seiden, the prominent Miami defense attorney. His client was charged with manslaughter relating to the accidental discharge of a factory stock Colt Commander. The discharge took place in an office, making the entire office area a crime scene, including the parking lot. The client's car was searched, and police recovered a Browning Hi-Power the defendant kept loaded in the vehicle. He had bought it used, the magazine disconnector safety already removed, and had left it in that condition. The assigned prosecutor made a huge deal over this, claiming that it showed a propensity to do reckless and negligent things with loaded weapons, even though that gun was in no way involved in the death in question.

Notice that even though the gun was in that condition when he bought it second hand, the State was prepared to argue that this was no excuse: the man was still using, for defensive purposes presumably, a lethal weapon with a safety device removed.

Mark got the guy a good plea deal, and has asked me to spare his client further humiliation by not mentioning his name. Out of respect to Mark, I've agreed to that stipulation. However, anyone can contact Attorney Mark Seiden in Miami, FL and confirm the nature of the case.
Emphasis added. Source: Legal ramifications for removal of mag safety (http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-466935.html) - a 2009 thread from The High Road archives

So the one case we are able to find that in any way relates to mag disconnects was not a self-defense shooting; it was a manslaughter case arising from a negligent discharge.

There's a pretty huge difference between purposefully shooting a threat, and accidentally shooting your coworker.

Mitchell,

You're the only one I see in this thread with a JD on the "disabling a mag disconnect is a recipe for trouble" side. Specifically, you note:


It is my personal belief based on my training and experience that removing a safety device from a weapon opens the door to an accusation of negligence
I know that you've been practicing law since 2005. Can you please tell us about the experience(s) you've had that led you to this determination? Were you counsel in a use of force case in which an accusation of negligence arose? Or was it a case of negligence itself (similar to the one referenced by Ayoob) that shaped your experience?

I ask not only because I am curious to read more cases, but because your practice of the law seems to have largely revolved around foreclosure, personal injury, and civil issues. I know that you have been involved in criminal defense as well (forgery, conspiracy, robbery, etc.) but have you served as counsel in any use of force cases?

You say that your position is based on experience, so I just want to get a good handle on specifically what that experience has been.

[ToddG]

So the one case we are able to find that in any way relates to mag disconnects was not a self-defense shooting; it was a manslaughter case arising from a negligent discharge.

And the case was pleaded out which suggests that it most likely never even went to trial so no jury ever heard the evidence. "The assigned prosecutor made a huge deal over this," as Mas writes, doesn't really tell us what if any impact it had on anyone but the prosecutor. Nor does it tell us whether that fact played a role in the final plea deal.

I can say from personal experience that there are plenty of times that a prosecutor may personally react to a fact in a case without it changing the calculus of guilty vs not guilty, plea vs trial, etc. For example, there was a major auto theft ring in DC while I was clerking at the prosecutor's office. Some of the thefts were carjackings and because carjacking is a violent federal offense my unit (Violent Crimes) got involved. The prosecutor who caught part of the case drove a BMW. He commented repeatedly in the office about one of the defendants who seemed almost exclusively interested in stealing BMWs. But that defendant didn't get any special attention and didn't suffer any greater scrutiny or penalty as a result.

[GardoneVT]

I think the wisest thing for is to do is to agree to disagree on the matter.Ultimately well have to stand on our own in the event we end up in court .

[Mitchell, Esq.]

As a skeptic, I find it really hard to get on board with hypothetical evidence. The whole, "Well issue A came up in case B, therefore issue X will most definitely come up in case Y" ...


Mitchell,

You're the only one I see in this thread with a JD on the "disabling a mag disconnect is a recipe for trouble" side. Specifically, you note:


I know that you've been practicing law since 2005. Can you please tell us about the experience(s) you've had that led you to this determination? Were you counsel in a use of force case in which an accusation of negligence arose? Or was it a case of negligence itself (similar to the one referenced by Ayoob) that shaped your experience?

I ask not only because I am curious to read more cases, but because your practice of the law seems to have largely revolved around foreclosure, personal injury, and civil issues. I know that you have been involved in criminal defense as well (forgery, conspiracy, robbery, etc.) but have you served as counsel in any use of force cases?

You say that your position is based on experience, so I just want to get a good handle on specifically what that experience has been.


I've been an attorney since 2006, not '05 (don't make me feel old…)

.I agree with your skeptic theory, but that's not the basis of my position on this issue which stems from this: I don't like complications.As to use of force cases, 1 civil case that ended up being a civil trial revolving around an assault in which the defendant claimed self defense (Note: please do not say "He Fell" to the police when describing what happened…) one criminal incidents resolved during pretrial in the defendant's favor with the case dismissed and the records sealed, and one more with a plea of carrying a pistol w/o a permit, but did not have to serve the mandatory minimum due to a finding of mitigating circumstances regarding the threat he believe he was facing.

.Those are the three most on point cases I have handled regarding use of force I can think of.Someone once described the practice of criminal law as being a used car salesman, and that's not inaccurate. I have to sell something to someone who may not want to accept it as offered… a client's story as to what happened to a judge.

.Doesn't matter what the case is…as a lawyer, you have to present it, so it's got a sales pitch to it.At least in my experience, due to case volume in the locations I practice in, we don't have one on one discussions with judges and prosecutors for pretrial resolution of cases most times. I have seen it as bad as 20 defense lawyers, 2 or 3 prosecutors and a judge all discussing cases one after another, in front of each other.

Prosecutors (and judges, who are many times former prosecutors) see a lot of people who do violent things to each other, and from dealing with these cases, I believe anything that to them appears negligent or "that shouldn't have happened" in the context of explaining violence is very likely not going to be well received.My experience tells me that as defense counsel, my explanation of whatever happened better make sense. It better make good sense, and anything that is going to interfere with that is therefore bad.Given that setting, not knowing before I walk into the conference what cases are going on today, or which case I'm going to have to follow when I speak that day…why would I want to deal with the prosecutor having the option of saying "Your Honor, his guy removes safeties off the guns he carries…"

So should I have to deal with the above when I speak after the lawyer representing the guy who punched out his girlfriend, cracking her occipital bone (she may lose the eye) or the attorney representing the guy who was involved in a stabbing which occurred at the intersection of a avenue named after a tree and a numbered cross street?I don't want to have an element that an opposing party can use as a hammer - even if it's a BS issue and a manufactured problem. I especially don't want to deal with it in that kind of situation.

I also do not want to have to deal with the fallout from the opposing side asking about the removal of safeties on anyone's weapons, and have in a closing argument a "You heard him - you heard him say it…he disables the safeties on his guns!".I lost a case when someone pulled that out of his hat on me regarding tax returns. During cross examination, opposing counsel asked the client about his business, and asked if he ever fudged a bit on his taxes. The client said yes, and it got worked into a very effective closing.I think the removal of a safety, like what is being discussed, is a needless complication that adds nothing positive, and has the potential for a negative impact; and therefore, I take the position that an issue avoided easily, is an issue that should be easily avoided.

Maybe I'm just taking an intellectual copout, because some days in the practice of law, I'm just a used car salesman, and don't want anyone or anything dicking my sales pitch.Especially easily avoidable issues which clients have control over.

I think you are asking very good question. Sorry I don't have a better answer, but thats my eexperience that takes me to my answer.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Byron,

Thanks for finding that. My google-fu is incredibly weak, and the search of my brain-housing-group revealed that I'd most likely read it in Combat Handguns or American Handgunner sometime in the last 20 years. :cool:

[David Armstrong]

Sure, such drivel can be countered, but why spend the $$ if you don't have to? I'll stress again that people who want to see a "conviction" based on this problem have missed the point . I doubt anyone's been "convicted" of a crime because of a "hair trigger" argument. But rest assured, many righteous defenders have spent months in custody and years after the acquittal impoverished over the matter. I don't know about you guys, but I want my court case to be an "In and Out" affair, not a drawn out legal ordeal over semantics of a $5 part change that results in the loss of my home, property , and assets.
This. At times I play expert witness in the courts, and I usually make reference to a case I worked where the guy was carrying in an ankle holster. Has nothing to do with anything else, right? Yet having that gun in an akle rig instead of a "normal" holster ended up adding about $3000 to his legal bill. Rarely will a single factor decide a case, it is a combination of factors. Sometimes what is pushed actually has NO bearing on the case itself but is used only to play with juror's miinds...remember the Skittles and iced tea from the Zimmerman case? I don't think it matters nearly as much in a criminal case as a civil case, and also think the biggest threat is just added cost to your defense.

[Byron]

Thanks for finding that. My google-fu is incredibly weak, and the search of my brain-housing-group revealed that I'd most likely read it in Combat Handguns or American Handgunner sometime in the last 20 years. :cool:
My pleasure. Thank you for referencing it. Regardless of the fact that it turned out to be a plea deal for a negligent discharge, it's still the closest case anyone has been able to find.


I usually make reference to a case I worked where the guy was carrying in an ankle holster. Has nothing to do with anything else, right? Yet having that gun in an akle rig instead of a "normal" holster ended up adding about $3000 to his legal bill.
I remember that case. I'm glad that Officer Carter was found not guilty, and that the Sang family lost the civil case. The fact that Carter and Sang had agreed to "fight like men" should hardly be a deciding factor in whether or not lethal force was justified, though I can see why the Sang family took issue with Carter's use of the ankle holster.

Still, I don't think that the extra $3,000 in legal bills was much of a problem for Carter. He went on to have quite the successful career.

[Suvorov]

Just figured I'd update you all about what I decided.

This pistol will primarily be a range gun, so I decided to go ahead an make the modifications necessary to install the SRT. If I later choose to place this weapon in a EDC mode, I may reconsider and reinstall the mag safety.

Since I wanted to make the deactivation reversible, I decided not to modify any of the original magazine safety parts. Sig customer service was not really helpful in assisting me with finding the rumored replacement part to deactivate the safety, so I ended up making one myself. Since I'm not a gunsmith nor certified armorer, I had to think about it for a while. Finally I decided to fabricate a replacement part out of brass bar stock using a hacksaw and a Dremil tool :p A few hours of work and a little cold weld and everything works well.

For those curious about what a Sig factory mag safety looks like, it is the trapezoidal piece under the frame. You can see the brass part in the frame being fitted.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f32/wyorca/Firearms/IMG_0520_zps7fbc32d2.jpg