RetiredUSNChief
Member
Thanks Frank (and Mas)!
Deactivated Safety Legal Troubles?
- Thread starter il.bill
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps it will come up, perhaps it won't. It's probably not terribly likely to be an issue in the criminal trial.
Where it is more likely that it will come up is at the subsequent civil trial.
That's because defensive shooters don't usually have enough money to make a civil judgment against them worthwhile. So what's the strategy that makes the effort worthwhile? Bring in a defendant with deep pockets. That defendant is your homeowner's insurance company. Problem is, insurance companies generally aren't liable for intentional acts on the part of the homeowner. Self-defense is an intentional act.
So to open those deep pockets, the plaintiff's lawyers will do their best to make the case that you claimed self-defense because that was the best strategy in the criminal case but that in reality the shooting was accidental.
They only have to prove their case with a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" as is the situation in a criminal case.
Any evidence that the defendant provides them that might lend credence to their claim of an accidental shooting ("hair triggers", deactivated safeties, etc.) will complicate his/her defense. That will, at least, cost extra money and at worst could cost the case.
Anyone who is actually interested in becoming educated on how civil lawyers think and operate, can gain valuable insight by reading David Berg's book, "The Trial Lawyer: What It Takes to Win".
And he pointed out a couple of reasons:HexHead said:
massad ayoob said:
massad ayoob said:
So perhaps the biggest factor in the removal of a safety device not being an issue is that the safety device was not removed. That's pretty simple. If you don't want it to be an issue, don't do it. But that's not the same thing as saying that if you do it, it's not likely to be an issue.
Posted by Frank Ettin, in response to "So, in 35 years as an expert witness, he's seen it come up once against an individual".
And just to explain that a little more: for Ayoob to have seen any such case,
The last two exclude only Mas. There are other people who may know more.
BUT: it would take only the first three to cause considerable difficulty for the gun owner.
Back to that old adage: it's not the odds, it's the stakes.
You will not find me with a firearm with a safety that has been disabled or removed.
Yep!
And just to explain that a little more: for Ayoob to have seen any such case,
- a firearm with a modified safety device would be required (there are really not very many of them, out of the total); and
- that firearm would have to be involved, at least indirectly, in an incident involving death or injury (that leaves a much, much smaller number); and
- a plaintiff would have to pursue civil litigation (that reduces the possible number still further); and
- the defendant's insurance company would have to decide to mount a defense rather than settle out of court, and to pursue that defense far enough for the subject of the safety to come up and to require an expert witness to be introduced (that reduces the potential number still more, and very substantially); and
- the defense would have to happen to ask for Massad Ayoob's involvement (what are the chances of that?); AND
- Ayoob would have to decide to accept the case.
The last two exclude only Mas. There are other people who may know more.
BUT: it would take only the first three to cause considerable difficulty for the gun owner.
Back to that old adage: it's not the odds, it's the stakes.
You will not find me with a firearm with a safety that has been disabled or removed.
HankB
Member
Glocks, Beretta 92s, 1911s, and of course revolvers don't have magazine disconnects . . . what commonly-issued LEO firearms do? SIG? Ruger? Maybe some S&W autos?
Nothing in the quoted comment you are responding to makes any reference to Glocks, Beretta 92s, 1911 or revolvers nor to magazine disconnects.
You remark about "commonly-issued" firearms but the quoted comment you responded to refers not only to issue firearms (not just commonly issued ones, by the way) but also to "privately owned/department approved" firearms.
You point out that the three general types of guns don't have magazine disconnects as if that is new information. In fact, the full message by Ayoob from which the quote was taken includes a sentence explicitly acknowledging that two of the three types of guns you mention don't have magazine disconnects. "Some of them involved lawsuits against gun companies – Beretta, Glock, Smith & Wesson, and Sterling Arms – alleging design negligence for not having magazine disconnector safeties."
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand your point.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I think the point isn't a direct comparison of one gun platform to the next. It's about altering whatever factory settings are on a GIVEN platform, period.
The fact that any other platform may or may not have an analogous safety to the one that was altered does not come into play in this.
The fact that any other platform may or may not have an analogous safety to the one that was altered does not come into play in this.
Bingo! That is exactly the point.RetiredUSNChief said:
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Post #25...
Thank you to Mr Ayoob for his input.
I feel he gave a detailed response & is far more qualified to express a opinion.
I stand by my remarks too & will not post any future remarks on this topic.
Rusty S
Thank you to Mr Ayoob for his input.
I feel he gave a detailed response & is far more qualified to express a opinion.
I stand by my remarks too & will not post any future remarks on this topic.
Rusty S
RetiredUSNChief
Member
george burns
Member
If you carry a gun for self defense, do not alter it in any way, period. That's pretty much the short version. Once you change the mechanics of the gun, it will be used against you regardless what you think or disagree on.
This would not apply to night sights.
You want your carry gun to be free of modifications. That's why they sell so many Glocks and M&P's, to Police forces.
And why departments stipulate what you can use on their approved list.
This would not apply to night sights.
You want your carry gun to be free of modifications. That's why they sell so many Glocks and M&P's, to Police forces.
And why departments stipulate what you can use on their approved list.
Posted by george burns:
My wife's SP 101 is in the shop for that purpose.
One other exception: if the modification is made for the purpose of smoothing the trigger while leaving it within acceptable pull weights, I would not worry about it.
There is at least one exception to that: if your carry gun is a double action revolver, it might well behoove you to have it modified so that it can be fired double action only.
My wife's SP 101 is in the shop for that purpose.
One other exception: if the modification is made for the purpose of smoothing the trigger while leaving it within acceptable pull weights, I would not worry about it.
Sheepdog1968
Member
Just got Ayoobs deadly Force book. Ch 13 is about hardware. "The second thing I'd avoid is deactivating the safet". He goes into more detail specifically 1911s. Then talks about do you want to give the prosecutor the argument "this person is so reckless with firearms THAT He DEACTIVATES THE SAFETY DEVICES ON LETHAL WEAPONS." Ayoob used the all caps.
That's an interesting question!
I would say that a safety is any device or functionality incorporated into a firearm that does one or both of the following:
1. Prevents (or is intended to prevent) the firearm, or any part of the firearm from normal operation under circumstances the designer or user feels it should not operate.
2. Is intended to expressly alert the user to some circumstance relevant to the readiness level of the firearm.
SMMAssociates
Member
One of these days, Mas is going to find out where I live, and stop by and beat me with his J-Frame....
Much of his legal work is in defending LEO's, and they often are presumed to have deeper pockets than the rest of us, or are helped by the FOP or their Department. More suits....
(IMHO, it's backwards - the LEO's tend to be tossed under the bus by their departments, although the unions might stay with them.)
Still, IMHO, you should never muck with a manufacturer-supplied safety device. It may be meaningless in a criminal trial if your counsel is any good at all, but all's fair, so to speak, in a Civil trial.
Regards,
Much of his legal work is in defending LEO's, and they often are presumed to have deeper pockets than the rest of us, or are helped by the FOP or their Department. More suits....
(IMHO, it's backwards - the LEO's tend to be tossed under the bus by their departments, although the unions might stay with them.)
Still, IMHO, you should never muck with a manufacturer-supplied safety device. It may be meaningless in a criminal trial if your counsel is any good at all, but all's fair, so to speak, in a Civil trial.
Regards,
AlexanderA
Member
Not all safety devices have equal significance. There are safety features that are inherent in the original design, and then there are new safety features that are added many years later as supposed "improvements." For example, the classic 1911 had plenty of original safety features -- the thumb and grip safeties, the disconnector, the inertia firing pin -- and then the Series 80 firing pin block was added as an afterthought, to solve a nonexistent problem. Likewise, the Ruger Mark II was doing just fine until the loaded-chamber indicator and magazine disconnect were added in the Mark III. It seems to me that if an owner removes the new features and returns the gun to the original tried-and-true design, that's quite a different situation than if he removes one of the original safety features. (As a matter of fact, it was documented that the first design of the Ruger Mark III loaded-chamber indicator made the gun less safe. The gun could fire if it was bumped on the loaded-chamber indicator. This prompted Ruger to issue a recall and install a redesigned indicator. Until the new indicator was installed, how could any owner be faulted for removing the defective indicator?)
In addition, the Series 80 firing pin block is not a generally-accepted industry standard. Plenty of 1911 clones are currently being produced without the feature. If you add the millions of pre-Series 80 guns (of all manufacturers) and the currently-produced ones without the feature, then it's clear that the ones with the feature are a distinct minority. Removing the firing pin block therefore makes the gun more "normal" as far as 1911's go.
Let's take a concrete example, involving two currently-produced low-end 1911 clones. The RIA/Armscor gun is made without a firing pin block, whereas the Auto Ordnance/Kahr gun is made with it. Let's say you own both, and you remove the firing pin block from the Kahr gun, making the two functionally the same. You have the two guns side by side on your nightstand. It should not make the least bit of difference which one of the two you pick up in a self-defense situation.
In addition, the Series 80 firing pin block is not a generally-accepted industry standard. Plenty of 1911 clones are currently being produced without the feature. If you add the millions of pre-Series 80 guns (of all manufacturers) and the currently-produced ones without the feature, then it's clear that the ones with the feature are a distinct minority. Removing the firing pin block therefore makes the gun more "normal" as far as 1911's go.
Let's take a concrete example, involving two currently-produced low-end 1911 clones. The RIA/Armscor gun is made without a firing pin block, whereas the Auto Ordnance/Kahr gun is made with it. Let's say you own both, and you remove the firing pin block from the Kahr gun, making the two functionally the same. You have the two guns side by side on your nightstand. It should not make the least bit of difference which one of the two you pick up in a self-defense situation.
Last edited:
SMMAssociates
Member
Larry:
IMHO, the notorious New York Trigger probably is the reason - I'm not sure that anybody can shoot those accurately without a lot more practice than the average LEO would get - even if he's getting paid for the time.
AlexanderA:
I have a 2011 RIA that I was surprised to find did not have the Series 80 block. While this one's not a carry gun (rails!), the trigger function seems to be about the same as an older Para PX745, which is essentially a Colt Series 80 with a ramped barrel and their PXT. While it definitely is a fix for which (nearly) no problem exists, it seems to be harmless unless it malfunctions. For me, remembering to pencil test the gun after a stripdown is a really good idea. I don't carry it much, but that and a very simple trigger job is about all I'd muck with.
Regards,
IMHO, the notorious New York Trigger probably is the reason - I'm not sure that anybody can shoot those accurately without a lot more practice than the average LEO would get - even if he's getting paid for the time.
AlexanderA:
I have a 2011 RIA that I was surprised to find did not have the Series 80 block. While this one's not a carry gun (rails!), the trigger function seems to be about the same as an older Para PX745, which is essentially a Colt Series 80 with a ramped barrel and their PXT. While it definitely is a fix for which (nearly) no problem exists, it seems to be harmless unless it malfunctions. For me, remembering to pencil test the gun after a stripdown is a really good idea. I don't carry it much, but that and a very simple trigger job is about all I'd muck with.
Regards,
First and foremost, let me apologize. I haven't read this thread as carefully as, perhaps, I should. That said, I've never let that stop me from commenting on a thread before, and see no need to stop now. 
From time to time, I field the question about removing safeties from friends of mine, and I've developed a nutshell explanation that goes like this:
I don't see the removal or disabling of a safety becoming much of an issue in the Self-Defense part of a self defense shooting. In an SD shooting, the SD Shooter basically has to tell the court, "I shot him, and I meant to shoot him. I had a REALLY good reason, though . . . " Because the case is (conceptually) positioned like that, a safety isn't an issue, because you would have flipped it off, anyway.
On the other hand, where removing or disabling safeties comes into play is in the (possible) civil suit that can follow a shooting. In that case, the plaintiff's lawyer will try to make a case that you didn't really mean to shoot BadGuy Billy, but that because of your negligent removal of the safety, the gun went off when you didn't mean for it to. In that case, removing/disabling a safety most certainly can become an issue.
The other thing to consider is the situation in which you may have drawn your pistol, but not need to shoot. Maybe BadGuy Billy puts his knife down. Your legal right to use lethal force evaporates, but you need to hold him at gunpoint until police arrive. You certainly don't want the gun going off then . . .
I'd also like to emphasize one point made by Frank Ettin.
As I've said in other posts, I'm not interested in spotting any points to the other side.
From time to time, I field the question about removing safeties from friends of mine, and I've developed a nutshell explanation that goes like this:
I don't see the removal or disabling of a safety becoming much of an issue in the Self-Defense part of a self defense shooting. In an SD shooting, the SD Shooter basically has to tell the court, "I shot him, and I meant to shoot him. I had a REALLY good reason, though . . . " Because the case is (conceptually) positioned like that, a safety isn't an issue, because you would have flipped it off, anyway.
On the other hand, where removing or disabling safeties comes into play is in the (possible) civil suit that can follow a shooting. In that case, the plaintiff's lawyer will try to make a case that you didn't really mean to shoot BadGuy Billy, but that because of your negligent removal of the safety, the gun went off when you didn't mean for it to. In that case, removing/disabling a safety most certainly can become an issue.
The other thing to consider is the situation in which you may have drawn your pistol, but not need to shoot. Maybe BadGuy Billy puts his knife down. Your legal right to use lethal force evaporates, but you need to hold him at gunpoint until police arrive. You certainly don't want the gun going off then . . .
I'd also like to emphasize one point made by Frank Ettin.
Frank is absolutely right. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about civil or criminal litigation. Everything that has to be explained is a wild card. There are a great many things, such as pistol modifications, which an SD shooter *might* be able to explain if given the chance. Suzy Soccermom might not really understand, though, and she might not care if it makes the trigger better. And it's one more issue that I (as a lawyer) might have to prep for in getting ready for trial, might have to hire an expert witness for (at SD Shooter's expense), might have to convince a jury that "no, removing a safety designed by the gun company's engineers really wasn't reckless . . . "Frank Ettin said:
As I've said in other posts, I'm not interested in spotting any points to the other side.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
^^^^
If I might add...
If one goes to court, either criminal or civil, everything that comes up WILL have to be explained. Therefore everything that comes up IS a "wild card". Heck, when you think about it, even an obviously justifiable homicide under the law which does not go to court is STILL a wild card because it has to be explained, too.
That's the way it works, like it or not.
Frank, Mas, Kleanbore have all put forth what their legal and law enforcement experience tells them on this matter, but I still think that perspective is important. This issue, like so many other similar issues people bring up, isn't something that people need to allow to distract them from what's REALLY important. (Which I think these people have also pointed out.)
In post #18 I said:
Any person who shoots another, justifiable or not, is likely in for a world of legal issues until the dust settles. That's just the way it is. The best defense any one of us can have, first and foremost, is knowledge/understanding of what the law ACTUALLY says and means...and then to be sure that we ACT within that law.
Excessive worrying about a legal modification to a firearm is pointless when viewed with the fact that many people don't have a clear understanding of what their jurisdictional deadly force laws say in the first place.
Now to be clear on this: I'm not saying that issues like modifying/removing safeties, ammunition selection, reloads or factory loads are not important. They are...but they have their place on the relative spectrum of importance.
To put it another way, to use an example from my experience in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, there is a write up titled "Everything is important, but some things are REALLY important". Put in the present context, the REALLY important thing which forms the bedrock foundation for us is what the law says about deadly force and when it's legal to use. Everything else is icing on the cake...important, but formless without the support of the underlying cake.
With so many people out there who quite obviously fail to grasp this fundamental issue (not saying anybody here is), allowing issues like this current one to overshadow the relative importance of the bedrock foundation will land you in hot water quicker than an issue with modifying a safety.
I agree...the devil is in the details and modifying a safety can land one in hot water under certain circumstances. These are good things to discuss now, as hypothetical scenarios, so that we can make sound decisions about how to go about our business as firearms owners and carriers BEFORE we are actually involved in some kind of shooting. So long as such discussions as these are building upon the bedrock foundation of the laws on deadly force and its use, then we are all moving in the right direction.
If I might add...
If one goes to court, either criminal or civil, everything that comes up WILL have to be explained. Therefore everything that comes up IS a "wild card". Heck, when you think about it, even an obviously justifiable homicide under the law which does not go to court is STILL a wild card because it has to be explained, too.
That's the way it works, like it or not.
Frank, Mas, Kleanbore have all put forth what their legal and law enforcement experience tells them on this matter, but I still think that perspective is important. This issue, like so many other similar issues people bring up, isn't something that people need to allow to distract them from what's REALLY important. (Which I think these people have also pointed out.)
In post #18 I said:
Any person who shoots another, justifiable or not, is likely in for a world of legal issues until the dust settles. That's just the way it is. The best defense any one of us can have, first and foremost, is knowledge/understanding of what the law ACTUALLY says and means...and then to be sure that we ACT within that law.
Excessive worrying about a legal modification to a firearm is pointless when viewed with the fact that many people don't have a clear understanding of what their jurisdictional deadly force laws say in the first place.
Now to be clear on this: I'm not saying that issues like modifying/removing safeties, ammunition selection, reloads or factory loads are not important. They are...but they have their place on the relative spectrum of importance.
To put it another way, to use an example from my experience in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, there is a write up titled "Everything is important, but some things are REALLY important". Put in the present context, the REALLY important thing which forms the bedrock foundation for us is what the law says about deadly force and when it's legal to use. Everything else is icing on the cake...important, but formless without the support of the underlying cake.
With so many people out there who quite obviously fail to grasp this fundamental issue (not saying anybody here is), allowing issues like this current one to overshadow the relative importance of the bedrock foundation will land you in hot water quicker than an issue with modifying a safety.
I agree...the devil is in the details and modifying a safety can land one in hot water under certain circumstances. These are good things to discuss now, as hypothetical scenarios, so that we can make sound decisions about how to go about our business as firearms owners and carriers BEFORE we are actually involved in some kind of shooting. So long as such discussions as these are building upon the bedrock foundation of the laws on deadly force and its use, then we are all moving in the right direction.
- Status
