Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 88

Thread: DA/SA revolver for self-defense. Liability concern?

  1. #1

    DA/SA revolver for self-defense. Liability concern?

    I have read on various self-defense blogs, magazines, etc. about how having a DA/SA revolver with an exposed hammer could open its user up to liability issues if they have to use this revolver in a defensive situation. I belive it goes something like: "a prosecutor or plaintiff attorney could say that you had a hair trigger and the gun went off by accident,"

    How do the members of this forum deal with that possibility? Perhaps some people do remove the SA capability, or buy revolvers without SA. While other people with a DA/SA revolver just don't let it bother them.

    Is there some other way to protect yourself, in a legal aspect, if you choose to carry a DA/SA revolver?

    Also, I wonder why I haven't heard of anyone being concerned with an exposed hammer DA/SA semi-auto. I don't hear people saying, "That DA/SA semi-auto is a liability! The prosecutor will say that you pulled the hammer back on your sig P226 in a defensive scenario, and the gun just went off accidentally."

  2. #2
    Lol. File this next to the Elvis sighting

    Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    You do understand that some of those SME’s® would tell you that modifying a factory firearm (converting DA/SA or a TDA to DA only, or, hell, adding hi-vis sights) would also put you in legal jeopardy, right?

    How far down this rabbit hole do you want to go? Not to get political, but as more and more prosecutors of a certain worldview gain office, we as a community have bigger issues to discuss, in my opinion.

    I still think a proper, justified solution to Problem #1 and living to deal with Problem #2 is preferable to the alternative.
    Last edited by Archer1440; 12-29-2021 at 10:44 AM.

  4. #4
    many folks run spurless hammers, either for that reason or because it is less likely to snag on clothing. There are also a few factory options for such a thing.

    If the prosecutor is savvy enough they could bring it up and you would need to spend some wallet time explaining it. With that said, as many should have learned watching the Rittenhouse trial, literally anything, no matter how stupid can and will be used against you. Hedge your bets accordingly and be able to explain every choice you made.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Archer1440 View Post
    You do understand that some of those SME’s® would tell you that modifying a factory firearm (converting DA/SA or a TDA to DA only, or, hell, adding hi-vis sights) would also put you in legal jeopardy, right?

    How far down this rabbit hole do you want to go? Not to get political, but as more and more prosecutors of a certain worldview gain office, we as a community have bigger issues to discuss, in my opinion.

    I still think a proper, justified solution to Problem #1 and living to deal with Problem #2 is preferable to the alternative.
    I've not heard of a case where someone got in trouble for adding night sights to a firearm. Nor have I heard of any legal problems if you make your trigger heavier, such as removing the SA capability.
    Last edited by Alex8056; 12-29-2021 at 11:01 AM.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Artemas2 View Post
    many folks run spurless hammers, either for that reason or because it is less likely to snag on clothing. There are also a few factory options for such a thing.

    If the prosecutor is savvy enough they could bring it up and you would need to spend some wallet time explaining it. With that said, as many should have learned watching the Rittenhouse trial, literally anything, no matter how stupid can and will be used against you. Hedge your bets accordingly and be able to explain every choice you made.

    For example, with the Rittenhouse trial, it seems like in hindsight carrying an AR around openly in public is probably not wise. Just as going to a riot, even if you are a nice person, is probably not wise.

    I suppose I'm trying to see if "gun guys/gals" would add "don't carry an SA-capable revolver" to the list of wise rules of thumb. Or if it's not a black and white issue.

  7. #7
    @Mas ??
    David S.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex8056 View Post
    I've not heard of case law where someone got in trouble for adding night sights to a firearm. Nor have I heard of any legal problems if you make your trigger heavier, such as removing the SA capability.
    When have you heard of legal trouble have a DA/SA firearm?



    Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex8056 View Post
    I've not heard of case law where someone got in trouble for adding night sights to a firearm. Nor have I heard of any legal problems if you make your trigger heavier, such as removing the SA capability.
    I think, based on my training and knowledge, which is by no means complete (and never will be) or definitive, what we should be parsing here is modifications that can be used in a damaging way to the case by the prosecutor, by speaking negatively as to the state of mind of the defendant.

    “Punisher” logo backplate on a Glock? “Smile for the flash” engraving on a thread protector? “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out” sticker on your truck? Probably damaging.

    Action work that makes the gun easier to shoot/more accurate? Better sights? A better grip surface? Probably going to come up if the prosecutor wants it to, but defensible by any qualified, knowledgeable defense attorney.

  10. #10
    It’s not something I would ever worry about. Most of this fear comes from a Miami PD incident that @Mas has written about in detail. Nothing scared law enforcement administrators more than their misunderstanding of liability concepts. If your shooting isn’t 100% clear cut for any reason, you might have to go to court for it nowadays. Get a good attorney and be prepared to pay the cost of expert witnesses necessary to explain whatever nonsense the prosecution accuses you of. Look at the Rittenhouse trial. The prosecutor went after him for having FMJ ammunition. If he had used barrier-blind soft points, the prosecutor would have gone after him for that.
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •