Modifying factory safety features to other factory configurations

[Suvorov]

One thing I just thought of,

What are the chances that the fire control group would be made available for those of us with legacy guns to retrofit? Would replacing the trigger mechanism with a SAI trigger sans magazine disconnect be less of a liability than simply removing the disconnect from the gun?

(CULLED FROM SA-35 thread - Mod)

[WobblyPossum]

Would replacing the trigger mechanism with a SAI trigger sans magazine disconnect be less of a liability than simply removing the disconnect from the gun?

First things first, I am not a lawyer of any kind. I think that if an overzealous prosecutor found out you removed a safety mechanism from the gun and wanted to bring it up during your trial, they would. The fact that another manufacturer makes a similar gun that lacks this mechanism doesn’t matter because you used your gun, not the other gun. You’d be paying your attorneys extra for the time it takes to address these points before and during trial, which may include research and consultation and testimony from expert witnesses. It’s up to you if having a better BHP trigger is worth the extra financial risk. I have a hard time thinking of a scenario where the thing determining whether or not your shooting goes to trial is your removal of the magazine disconnect. It’ll either be brought up because you’re going to trial or no one will care because you aren’t.

[Stephanie B]

Would replacing the trigger mechanism with a SAI trigger sans magazine disconnect be less of a liability than simply removing the disconnect from the gun?

First things first, I am not a lawyer of any kind. I think that if an overzealous prosecutor found out you removed a safety mechanism from the gun and wanted to bring it up during your trial, they would. The fact that another manufacturer makes a similar gun that lacks this mechanism doesn’t matter because you used your gun, not the other gun. You’d be paying your attorneys extra for the time it takes to address these points before and during trial, which may include research and consultation and testimony from expert witnesses. It’s up to you if having a better BHP trigger is worth the extra financial risk. I have a hard time thinking of a scenario where the thing determining whether or not your shooting goes to trial is your removal of the magazine disconnect. It’ll either be brought up because you’re going to trial or no one will care because you aren’t.

@Mas has written about this before and it's been discussed ad nauseum here. Short answer: If you're going to take out safety mechanisms, designate that gun as a range toy/competition only gun. the last thing you want to do with a CCW gun is to create an issue that gives the other side, be it state's attorney or the attorney for the bad guy (or his relatives) an argument to hang you with. You'll have to hire experts to argue that removing the disconnector had no bearing on the use of the gun for self-defense. My guess is that'll cost you tens of thousands to do, on top of the other legal expenses.

In soccer, they call that an "own goal".

I bought a kind-of gunked-up Series 80 LW Commander from a widow. Her late husband had blanked off the Series 80 firing pin safety. The very first thing I did was buy the parts to restore that to operation.

[MandoWookie]

@Mas has written about this before and it's been discussed ad nauseum here. Short answer: If you're going to take out safety mechanisms, designate that gun as a range toy/competition only gun. the last thing you want to do with a CCW gun is to create an issue that gives the other side, be it state's attorney or the attorney for the bad guy (or his relatives) an argument to hang you with. You'll have to hire experts to argue that removing the disconnector had no bearing on the use of the gun for self-defense. My guess is that'll cost you tens of thousands to do, on top of the other legal expenses.

In soccer, they call that an "own goal".

I bought a kind-of gunked-up Series 80 LW Commander from a widow. Her late husband had blanked off the Series 80 firing pin safety. The very first thing I did was buy the parts to restore that to operation.

I keep seeing this repeated, and while I mostly agree, how would this advice apply to guns that have 2 versions available , one with safety, and one without?
For example the M&P series. If one were to buy a thumb safety model, but decide that it doesn't work for them, and swap out the parts for a non safety version, does that constitute a liable modification, despite it being identical to a factory gun variation in function? Because you are removing a safety feature. Or how about switching to decocker only on a Beretta 92? You are removing a factory safety.
If the argument is that those are factory parts and the company makes guns in variations that match the modification, then the argument about not removing something like the series 80 FPS falls flat because Colt offers guns both with and without that feature, and I have seen references to them using slides cut for that feature in Series 70 guns that simply didnt install those parts. Functionally identical to someone who had removed it.

[FrankB]

Has anyone ever been found guilty because they’ve modified a gun’s safety features?

[Stephanie B]

I keep seeing this repeated, and while I mostly agree, how would this advice apply to guns that have 2 versions available , one with safety, and one without?
For example the M&P series. If one were to buy a thumb safety model, but decide that it doesn't work for them, and swap out the parts for a non safety version, does that constitute a liable modification, despite it being identical to a factory gun variation in function? Because you are removing a safety feature. Or how about switching to decocker only on a Beretta 92? You are removing a factory safety.
If the argument is that those are factory parts and the company makes guns in variations that match the modification, then the argument about not removing something like the series 80 FPS falls flat because Colt offers guns both with and without that feature, and I have seen references to them using slides cut for that feature in Series 70 guns that simply didnt install those parts. Functionally identical to someone who had removed it.

My recommendation would be to balance the cost of replacing the parts vs. the cost of swapping guns. Then figure out the likelihood of a SD shooting and the cost of having to argue those points in court before a jury, some of whom may have never held a gun in their lives.

Buying a gun that the factory didn't install feature X is a whole different kettle of fish than yanking out feature x.

[OlongJohnson]

Has anyone ever been found guilty because they’ve modified a gun’s safety features?

One of the two cases that are widely used to illustrate the risks of deactivating a "safety device" or modifying a gun's trigger specifically involved a Hi Power with the magazine disconnect removed. @Mas has written about it extensively. The Hi Power was not involved in the shooting; it was used as a range gun and was merely in the possession of the person who shot a violent attacker. The removed magazine disconnect was argued to constitute evidence that the shooter was generally reckless/negligent with firearms.

There is a lot more to the case than that, however. In both that and the other high-profile example case (police shooting in FL), the hardware issue arose after the fact when the defendant initially stated that he didn't intend to fire the gun, then changed to claiming self-defense. The altered hardware was then used by prosecutors to lever each case back toward the negligence angle that arose from the initial situation of having shot someone without that being the intent.

If I recall correctly, one was convicted, one was acquitted.

I keep seeing this repeated, and while I mostly agree, how would this advice apply to guns that have 2 versions available , one with safety, and one without?
For example the M&P series. If one were to buy a thumb safety model, but decide that it doesn't work for them, and swap out the parts for a non safety version, does that constitute a liable modification, despite it being identical to a factory gun variation in function? Because you are removing a safety feature. Or how about switching to decocker only on a Beretta 92? You are removing a factory safety.
If the argument is that those are factory parts and the company makes guns in variations that match the modification, then the argument about not removing something like the series 80 FPS falls flat because Colt offers guns both with and without that feature, and I have seen references to them using slides cut for that feature in Series 70 guns that simply didnt install those parts. Functionally identical to someone who had removed it.

Or take the example of Buck Mark pistols. They didn't have a magazine disconnect for a few decades, then they did. If a person has older and newer Buck Marks in the safe, some came with it, some did not. The different hardware is entirely concealed beneath the right grip panel. How safe is it to have guns in the safe that appear essentially identical, but have different manual of arms? What if a person had experience with one or more of the guns that had a magazine disconnect feature, and then was handling one of the guns that did not have it. How would they know the difference, other than very close supervision or being competent and following the safety rules, in which case the magazine disconnect feature wouldn't matter? One could certainly argue that, since it is not practical to add the feature to the guns that were originally manufactured without it, it is actually safer overall to have all the guns function the same way by removing the feature from the guns that have it.

[MandoWookie]

My recommendation would be to balance the cost of replacing the parts vs. the cost of swapping guns. Then figure out the likelihood of a SD shooting and the cost of having to argue those points in court before a jury, some of whom may have never held a gun in their lives.

Buying a gun that the factory didn't install feature X is a whole different kettle of fish than yanking out feature x.

So if I bought an M&P with safety, bought factory fire control parts for converting it to non safety, bought the factory frame plugs, all of which are sold by the manufacturer in their own web store, to convert to the gun to a condition that is offered in parallel with the version I purchased, and is functionally identical to a gun I could purchase and carry with no issue, that would be somehow a possible legal liability?

What about with the current push of 'modularity' with guns like the SIG P320? Where they are marketing the ability to swap out nearly everything at the user level as a feature?

[mmc45414]

Buying a gun that the factory didn't install feature X is a whole different kettle of fish than yanking out feature x.

I agree, but...

For example the M&P series. If one were to buy a thumb safety model, but decide that it doesn't work for them, and swap out the parts for a non safety version, does that constitute a liable modification, despite it being identical to a factory gun variation in function?

Has anyone ever been found guilty because they’ve modified a gun’s safety features?

So if I bought an M&P with safety, bought factory fire control parts for converting it to non safety, bought the factory frame plugs, all of which are sold by the manufacturer in their own web store, to convert to the gun to a condition that is offered in parallel with the version I purchased, and is functionally identical to a gun I could purchase and carry with no issue, that would be somehow a possible legal liability?

I know this is a hotly debated topic, but in the case of the M&P how would it even be known? Not even sure the sear block is a different part?

[Stephanie B]

So if I bought an M&P with safety, bought factory fire control parts for converting it to non safety, bought the factory frame plugs, all of which are sold by the manufacturer in their own web store, to convert to the gun to a condition that is offered in parallel with the version I purchased, and is functionally identical to a gun I could purchase and carry with no issue, that would be somehow a possible legal liability?

What about with the current push of 'modularity' with guns like the SIG P320? Where they are marketing the ability to swap out nearly everything at the user level as a feature?

First paragraph: You pays your money and takes your chances.

Second paragraph: I don't know.