c.latrans
Member
I am looking at a S&W model 637 airweight for CCW. Can the lawyer lock be removed, and if so is it a difficult process?
Lawyer lock removal?
- Thread starter c.latrans
- Start date
- Status
Check this link.
How to remove it and a plug available to replace the wart on the side of your gun.
Read the entire thread. I posted a link on how to remove the lock in that thread.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/accessories-misc-sale-trade/101850-sale-plug.html
How to remove it and a plug available to replace the wart on the side of your gun.
Read the entire thread. I posted a link on how to remove the lock in that thread.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/accessories-misc-sale-trade/101850-sale-plug.html
c.latrans
Member
Thank you, Iggy.....exactly the info I needed.
earlthegoat2
Member
Buy a pre lock please.
Not only does it have better craftsmanship it does not support S&W and their weak backbone.
Not only does it have better craftsmanship it does not support S&W and their weak backbone.
KBintheSLC
Member
You can also use a Dremmel and just grind off the little metal stump that blocks the hammer. That way you can leave the little IL plate in place, and dont have to buy additional parts to plug the hole.
I went through this issue with my new 637 and just decided to leave it be. I don't like the lock, but it hasn't caused any problems as of yet.
I went through this issue with my new 637 and just decided to leave it be. I don't like the lock, but it hasn't caused any problems as of yet.
c.latrans
Member
KB, thats another good thought....I will look it over closely.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
YUP!!!
johnnylaw53
Member
Why would anyone want to remove the lock on a lawyer?
Heck, all lawyers should be equipped with a lock to prevent misuse.
__________________
Oh that is good deal with lawyers all the time really could use a lock on them
be safe
Heck, all lawyers should be equipped with a lock to prevent misuse.
__________________
Oh that is good deal with lawyers all the time really could use a lock on them
be safe
"It's a good thing the lock is just a storage device, not a safety device."
That's NOT what an attorney will tell a gullible jury. If a modified gun is EVER used in a shooting the prosecutor and any civil litigator trying to FRY YOU will find out. The gun will be examined and opposing counsel WILL have a full report noting the fact that a SAFETY DEVICE (you keep calling it a storage device all you want, that's NOT what the jury will hear) has been removed or disabled. A good attorney will have a field day with you. You will be sued from Hell to breakfast. You will very likely lose and have to pay a huge settlement. You may lose your home; your gun collection; future wages and anything else you own. A gung-ho anti-gun prosecutor might get a negligent homicide conviction with a sympathetic jury. How does being a convicted felon sound to you? Even if you win you will spend $50,000 to $100,000 in legal defense. Having fun so far?
I have discussed this matter with four lawyers, three of whom are gun owners. All agreed they would own a defendant who had removed a SAFETY DEVICE from a gun that was subsequently used in a shooting. They all said they would select jury members who knew nothing about guns and they could be convinced that removing the lock was not only dangerous but makes you a deranged, violent, Rambo wannabe who wanted his gun even more deadly than it already was. Crazy? Hell, yes. But this is what lawyers are trained to do and it happens everyday.
But hey, you all do what makes you happy. Keep your heads firmly buried in the ground. What makes me happy is NOT giving lawyers out to get me anything they can use against me.
Call me kooky.
That's NOT what an attorney will tell a gullible jury. If a modified gun is EVER used in a shooting the prosecutor and any civil litigator trying to FRY YOU will find out. The gun will be examined and opposing counsel WILL have a full report noting the fact that a SAFETY DEVICE (you keep calling it a storage device all you want, that's NOT what the jury will hear) has been removed or disabled. A good attorney will have a field day with you. You will be sued from Hell to breakfast. You will very likely lose and have to pay a huge settlement. You may lose your home; your gun collection; future wages and anything else you own. A gung-ho anti-gun prosecutor might get a negligent homicide conviction with a sympathetic jury. How does being a convicted felon sound to you? Even if you win you will spend $50,000 to $100,000 in legal defense. Having fun so far?
I have discussed this matter with four lawyers, three of whom are gun owners. All agreed they would own a defendant who had removed a SAFETY DEVICE from a gun that was subsequently used in a shooting. They all said they would select jury members who knew nothing about guns and they could be convinced that removing the lock was not only dangerous but makes you a deranged, violent, Rambo wannabe who wanted his gun even more deadly than it already was. Crazy? Hell, yes. But this is what lawyers are trained to do and it happens everyday.
But hey, you all do what makes you happy. Keep your heads firmly buried in the ground. What makes me happy is NOT giving lawyers out to get me anything they can use against me.
Call me kooky.
SaxonPig, here is the Smith and Wesson owners manual. Not once is the internal lock referred to as a "safety device". PP 15-17 address the lock specifically. Numerous times the lock is used in reference to prevention of its unauthorized use.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/other/S&W_Revolver_Manual.pdf
If I find myself a defendant in a self defense shooting, much of my fate will be sealed based on the PERTINENT issues of the shooting, not whether my gun has engraving, fancy grips, or if a storage aid has been removed to ensure greater odds of reliable operation.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/other/S&W_Revolver_Manual.pdf
So "counselor" are you arguing that if I don't disable the lock that my legal defense will be cheaper? Are you also arguing that not removing the storage device will make me any less likely to be the victim of a gullible jury? As was the case with Harold Fish (where the DA made a bogus issue of those evil hollow points), if I have an inept defense lawyer, I'm screwed, WITH OR WITHOUT THE LOCK.
If I find myself a defendant in a self defense shooting, much of my fate will be sealed based on the PERTINENT issues of the shooting, not whether my gun has engraving, fancy grips, or if a storage aid has been removed to ensure greater odds of reliable operation.
"are you arguing that if I don't disable the lock that my legal defense will be cheaper?"
The fewer things you give opposing counsel to snap at and chew on, the less time your lawyer will have to spend (at a few hundred bucks an hour) on defending against them. Seems to make sense to me.
Life's not fair, even in courtrooms. Maybe especially in courtrooms. Betting your life on the hope that a prosecuting attorney will focus on issues PERTINENT to his losing the case may prove problematic.
The fewer things you give opposing counsel to snap at and chew on, the less time your lawyer will have to spend (at a few hundred bucks an hour) on defending against them. Seems to make sense to me.
Life's not fair, even in courtrooms. Maybe especially in courtrooms. Betting your life on the hope that a prosecuting attorney will focus on issues PERTINENT to his losing the case may prove problematic.
earlthegoat2
Member
This can happen if anyone ever has to defend themselves with deadly force. Might as well not carry a gun and get killed by the bad guy if you are worried about this happening.
Deanimator
Member
You have NO control over what an attorney tells a gullible jury. He can claim you're a witch.
What you CAN control is your ability to not only REBUT what he says, but to make a fool of him in the process.
You'd damned well better be prepared to do that, even if you submit meekly to your attacker.
- Status
