Disabling the S&W Lock

Status
Not open for further replies.
flyboy1788 said:
Can someone please tell me specifically WHY altering a safety device would make a damn bit of difference on a revolver if used in self defense?????

Once again the IL is NOT a safety device. It's a security device. A grip safety is a safety device. A transfer bar is a safety device. A mag disconnect is a safety device. Funny thing about the mag disconnect. Lots of manufacturers make the same gun available with or without the mag disconnect and many people remove them from the version that has them. Nobody seems to think this is a legal issue like they do the internal lock removal.
 
It has everything to do with perception. Everyone here knows that a lock that is disabled is done so to keep the firearm from failing in the moment of need. Unfortunately, the majority of people don't know this and probably don't care. If there is an unscrupulous attorney, prosecutor or otherwise, that knows why a lock was disabled and understands that this modification has zero impact on the gun other than to keep it from failing but still presents it to a jury as a dangerous modification that resulted in the death of a bad guy, well, you could be in a mess.

So, you're saying that the DA can claim that the thug he is defending was "accidentally" shot because the gun had a safety tampered with, thus making it more prone to an AD or something along those lines?

ETA: wuchak, I dont see how it is vital to point out what the official technical name for it is, seeing as it is understood that we are both talking about the same thing, and regardless of what it is called, I just want to know how this would EVER fly in court.
 
Lawyers do their job. If their job is to sue you then they will use every advantage at their disposal. I prefer to not give a lawyer anything that could conceivably be used against me.

I do not fear being prosecuted or sued... I AM TERRIFIED OF IT.

Flyboy1788- As I said earlier, WE... those of us knowledgeable about guns... realize that the internal lock is a storage lock and has nothing to do with the safe operation of the gun. However, if opposing counsel learns that you disabled any safety device it will become a point he can use against you tp prejudice a jury... the members of which he will select SPECIFICALLY for their lack of knowledge about firearms... into seeing you as raging manic killer or at least someone who has wanton disregard for gun safety.

Agree or disagree, like it or not, call lawyers bad names if it makes you feel better, THAT'S the way it works in court. Please note that a jury forced Remington to pay the man whose son shot him in the back $7,000,000. The boy admitted to pointing the gun at his dad, with his finger on the trigger knowing it was loaded but the jury found Remington responsible.

Once again, anyone who thinks fearing legal action following a shooting is silly, please be my guest and disable your lock. As for me, I have seen lawyers going after people in court. They spend four years in law school being trained how to do it and they only get better with practice. I have no desire whatsoever to give an attorney thinking of coming after me ANYTHING useful.
 
So, you're saying that the DA can claim that the thug he is defending was "accidentally" shot because the gun had a safety tampered with, thus making it more prone to an AD or something along those lines?

All I'm saying is that anything can happen in court. Remember the O.J. Simpson trial?
 
Saxon- Thank you for the detailed explanation. That cleared things up quite a bit.

Phydeaux642- I am going to sound like a complete newb telling you that I dont remember what happened in that trial, but I was a young kid during the years that the trial took place. (I am nearing 21 now)
 
it is your gun, modify it at will.
So I can saw off my 870 barrel, then? :D

How about the disconnector on my Mini-14? :D


Personally, I wouldn't modify any "safety" devices on my carry guns. I don't carry reloads. But that's just me. I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV.
 
flyboy1788 said:
ETA: wuchak, I dont see how it is vital to point out what the official technical name for it is, seeing as it is understood that we are both talking about the same thing, and regardless of what it is called, I just want to know how this would EVER fly in court.

I pointed that out because there is a meaningful difference between the two terms. Tampering with a "safety" feature on a firearm could carry some considerable weight in the courtroom, not to mention it raises the chance of a negligent discharge. Tampering with a "security" storage feature is not relevant in a self defense case. The only time it would be relevant is if someone accessed your stored firearm and was injured. The case could be made that had the lock been intact you "might" have locked it and prevented the accident. In any other circumstance your defense attorney will have an easy time making the removal of the lock a non-issue even if the prosecution brings it up.

If the turning point of a trial for a self defense shooting is that you have disabled the lock on your firearm then you were already going to jail for a bad shoot.
 
Last edited:
Our system is a truly adversarial one, as opposed to courts in civil law countries. Our system is more concerned with giving people an opportunity to make their case, rather than doing everything possible to make sure we find the truth in every case.

As long as we "have our day in court" - one that is condicted fairly - we've gotten all we should in the American legal system. As such, the judge and/or jury does not sit down before the trial begins, deciding what is and isn't at issue. The lawyers build their cases and present their arguments - and any good attorney will make any point he can.

After three long years, I graduate law school in a week. Please know that an attorney will exploit any advantage he perceives in a case, period. This is not a matter of "slimy lawyering". This is, literally, his SWORN duty - to "zealously represent" his client (quoting the model rules of professional conduct). The system works because there is another attorney, on the other side, doing the same. What we may think of as "fair" has F-all to do with what's going to happen in a lawsuit.

None of us can know how we're going to react to these situations. There are any number of them in which the IL - or any other feature of the gun - may be called into question/scrutiny. What if, at any point in the immediate aftermath of a defensive shooting, you're still shaking from the adrenaline letdown, and you say something even remotely like "I didn't mean/want to shoot him". MOTHER OF GOD - if anyone hears anything like that, you'd better believe that the disabled IL is going to become an issue in a hurry.

To those who wanted an example/analogy - let's use a simple, law school one. You're cutting your grass. The mowed has a guard on it, to protect against debris that gets kicked up by the blades. However, you find that this guard doesn't let you cut as close to the house/bushes as you'd like, so you remove it. A year later, a rock gets kicked up and the little neighbor boy has his "eye put out". Your "improper modification" of the mower will 1) likely indemnify the manufacturer of the mower, and 2) likely become the new centerpiece of the discussion/trial regarding your negligence.

I'll just lay my hands on a "pre-lock" gun, or choose a new model without one.
 
Phydeaux642 psoted by Mas Ayoob on the firingline forum.

"Anyone with a three-digit IQ knows that unscrupulous attorneys may come after them with unmeritorious arguments in the wake of a justified shooting. Telling them "Aw, don't worry about it" is kinda like Sarah Brady telling people, "Aw, criminals won't come after you. You don't need a gun."

People know the crapload of trouble they can get into after the most justified shooting. It can make people hesitate long enough to be killed. That's why I make a point of educating folks how to deal with the aftermath, so they'll know they can get through it and not die from fatal hesitation in the moment of truth.

Why do you think you won't find a reputable gunsmith who will remove a safety device from a firearm? Did you think I scared them? They know what is likely to happen in a litigious society when a money-hungry plaintiff's lawyer or a politically-motivated prosecutor goes after someone who was in a "clean shoot" and tries to make them appear reckless and irresponsible.

The jury will have been cleared of knowledgeable gun folks during voir dire, the jury selection process. When opposing counsel presents their "theory of the case", they will need to establish recklessness. Removing a safety device from a lethal weapon plays right into their hands.

You, the shooter, now have to convince the jury that you know more about the gun than its designer and manufacturer. Pretty high mountain to climb.

In a manslaughter case in Miami some years ago, famed defense attorney Mark Seiden did a case in which the prosecutor made a big deal about the deactivated magazine disconnector safety on the defendant's Browning Hi-Power, which was in his car at the scene but was not even the death weapon. The case was plea-bargained, and Mark prefers that his client's name not be used to spare him further humiliation, but Mark himself will confirm that it happened.

Haven't personally seen a case involving the S&W lock, but the same principles would undoubtedly apply. Personally, I just make a point of using pre-lock models for my J-frame carry needs.

Decision is yours, folks. It's your life and your future. But get all the information and make a fully informed decision."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top