agtman said:
Sure - if they came from the factory that way, then they are what they are.
But manually disabling a factory-installed safety mechanism to make your gun "more efficient" as a killing devise, even in self-defense, won't play well before a jury of non-gun folk when the bad guy's attorney - or the prosecutor - brings that out.
And while a civil suit for wrongful death, even if successful, is only money, a criminal prosecution is about how many years poor old Walt will have to spend in the State Pen, entertaining a frisky cellmate named Large Larry.
'Nuff said.
How does a safety device intended to prevent negligent discharges when the weapon is thought to be EMPTY (but isn't) indicate that the shooter wanted to make it a more efficient killing device? If
there's no mag in the gun and a single round in the chamber -- the only time the magazine safety works -- it is already a less efficient killing device than it would be otherwise. Then too, a wrongful death is one thing, and the justified use of lethal force is another -- and should not be treated as the same thing for this discussion.
Just assuming that the removal of a mag safety will automatically convince a jury in a criminal trial that the use of lethal force was unjustified does not follow. And the Then, too, using "lethal force" doesn't mean that someone has to die... (Some might argue that removing the mag safety on SOME (but not all) guns so equipped make the gun easier to shoot well, and a better tool to hit the desired target. But your are in danger, and using the weapon to defend yourself or those around you, why would you want a weapon that is less effective than it can be? It might be "more deadly" then, but you wouldn't be using lethal force if it wasn't necessary!
- If someone is KILLED (or harmed) negligently/accidentally because the shooter thought the gun was empty when it wasn't, he or she is still going to be in trouble whether he or she had previously removed the mag safety or left it in place. (A round in the chamber can still be fired if an empty mag is in the gun equipped with a mag safety!)
- He or she will still also be in trouble if the gun didn't have a mag safety in the first place and the round in the chamber harms someone. It's wrongful death/harm, either way.
- I suspect a prosecutor could make the same sort of claim when saying the shooter had a gunsmith do a trigger or action or other modifications that make the shooter more effective (like better sights, a LASER sighting sytems, etc.,) when using the weapon.
There can also be a following CIVIL suit, even if the shooter is NOT found guilty of a criminal offense. A CIVIL suit might be the biggest problem for many people, and while it's only money, it could ruin the shooter's life and gravely affect the family. They could lose everything they own!
In the case of the justified use of lethal force, your defense attorney, if he knows about weapons and and gun laws (and you shouldn't have hired him if he doesn't) could argue that
removing a magazine safety doesn't make the gun more dangerous to the other party if the shooter intended to use the weapon in self defense. In that case the weapon is already as dangerous as it can be!! The defense attorney should argue that a magazine safety is a device intended
to prevent a negligent discharge when the weapon is thought to be EMPTY (but isn't), or while it's being emptied.
Removing the magazine safety doesn't make that weapon a bit more deadly, when lethal force is appropriate, than it would have been if it had been left in place,
if the shooter was defending himself and actually meant to pull the trigger.
If the shooter
DID NOT MEAN to pull the trigger, the installed magazine safety can prevent an accidental discharge ONLY if the magazine is being removed or has been removed... Otherwise, it's like any other gun. If it's an accidental (negligent) discharge, the shooter is still in trouble as that's it's still not a justified use of lethal force.
As to whether a jury would consider the removal of a "safety" device an attempt to make a gun more deadly,
or whether it will even be considered at all in a CRIMINAL PROSECUTION may be more dependent upon the jurisdiction (state or federal law) than on a jury's opinion or the prosecutor's arguments. Knowledge of your state laws and legal precedents is important.
In the case of the justified use of lethal force, a following civil suit is likely to be the biggest problem. Mas Ayoob has apparently talked about such cases in his books and classes, but his points aren't always discussed in their full context when they are brought back and presented on forums like this -- as the details (i.e., the laws in effect) are almost never fully presented when the points are passed on.
Here in North Carolina, if it's a good shoot (the use of lethal force was justified), there cannot, by law, be a related or following CIVIL suit from the person on the receiving end. Other states may deal with the situation differently.
That said, I don't know what will happen in NC if the person using lethal force unintentionally harms an innocent bystander while defending him- or herself; until that happens and is tested in court, that point remains unknown.
State laws vary, and you simply can't say, "nuff said" -- 'cause "nuff" hasn't been said.
.
