Legal downside to dehorning a revolver?

[TheProf]

Bought a SW360. Later, decided to "dehorn" this revolver and filed down the SA sear. In other words, there is no longer an external hammer to pull back and it is impossible to set this in SA mode. It is now an DAO revolver.

I did this for possible (although probably far-fetched) idea that in a self-defense situation, an unscrupulous lawyer may claim that the gun went off by accident in when the hammer was pulled back and the gun was in SA mode. (Thus making a ND accusation.)

Also, as a practical matter, by dehorning the hammer, it is easier to draw from one's pocket without fear that of the gun snagging.

So...it looks like a win-win. Easier to draw the gun, and at the same time, it makes it impossible for others to accuse me of having the gun on "hair trigger mode". From my perspective, I have actually made the gun safer.

My question is...
Anyways, is there a legal downside to dehorning the revolver?

 

[MachIVshooter]

Anyways, is there a legal downside to dehorning the revolver?

Well, it'll likely leave you with no recourse if S&W ever tells you to pound sand on the warranty because of your mods. But otherwise, I can't think of anything

 

[NG VI]

If you don't have a DA hammer or remove the SA hammer hooks (not sure what they are called exactly on a revolver, but the equivalent of a CZ's hammer hooks) you can still cock it, but stand a much greater chance of causing a discharge while doing so, and good luck safely decocking it without the spur.

 

[Oro]

good luck safely decocking it without the spur.

He said he removed the SA sear, so the gun can not be placed in a fully cocked position.

I did this for possible (although probably far-fetched) idea that in a self-defense situation, an unscrupulous lawyer may claim that the gun went off by accident in when the hammer was pulled back and the gun was in SA mode.

Yes, far-fetched. If you shot someone, an angry prosecutor arguing that you did it "accidentally" means he's really helping you out since, legally, it's much worse to intend to shoot someone and do so than to accidentally do so.

If you prefer the gun the way it is modified, that's a good reason to modify it. But to modify a gun because of a Hollywood-fiction type idea of self-defense is not as sound.

 

[rmfnla]

Seems to me you could have asked these questions before chopping up your gun...

 

[TX1911fan]

Oro, you are not completely correct. In a self defense situation, you are admitting to intending to shoot someone because you felt your life was in danger so you shot to stop the threat. You DO NOT want to say that you didn't intend to shoot someone in a self defense situation. An AD in a self defense scenario is very, very bad.

 

[Shadow Man]

I don't see a problem with it. And if it makes you more confident in your firearm, than that's a plus as well.

As an aside: TX1911fan...where did you find the quote in your signature? I like it.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

If you rendered the revolver DAO internally and removed the hammer spur to prevent thumb cocking, from a legalstandpoint there is no downside. It removes any possibility that you might thumb cock it and fire a shot accidentally.

 

[Cosmoline]

It's not a good idea to make modifications based on what you speculate some lawyer might do down the line. You really have no way to tell, and you're almost certain to be wrong. At the same time, your very alteration of the firearm out of fear of what might happen in court could make the matter relevant when it never would have been before.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Los Angeles PD did this many years ago, and I believe S&W offered this option on special ordered revolvers. This would make any challenge in court kind of moot since it has already been a governmental and industry accepted practice. They currently offer DA only auto pistols with no happer spurs, too.

 

[kingpin008]

Personally, I don't understand why people do things like this. If it's a good shoot, it's a good shoot and there's really nothing the DA or Prosecutor can do to change that. If you're worried about how things will look after the fact, perhaps you shouldn't have taken the shot to begin with.

 

[Oro]

Oro, you are not completely correct. In a self defense situation, you are admitting to intending to shoot someone because you felt your life was in danger so you shot to stop the threat.

The way I read the OP's post, he's saying that the counter-argument is that a) the gun went off accidentally because of alterations. b) the shooter did not intend to shoot, it was an accidental shooting.

So in his scenario, he's already under either prosecution or the threat of indictment for a shooting. The prosecutor has already decided it wasn't justified, so therefor the lessor of the evils confronting him is un-intentional vs. intentional. The charges that come accompany the latter are much worse.

Regardless of our extrapolations of his ideas or hypotheticals, what he has done is at least properly converted the gun to DAO by removing not just the spur but the sear. That's better than just bobbing it.

 

[Zoogster]

Yes, far-fetched. If you shot someone, an angry prosecutor arguing that you did it "accidentally" means he's really helping you out since, legally, it's much worse to intend to shoot someone and do so than to accidentally do so.

Actually that is incorrect from a legal standpoint.

If you are in a situation that may warrant the use of deadly force but for some reason shoot a criminal accidentally then it is negligence.
Even if it would have been justifiable if the shooting was intentional, because it was done on accident it is automatically a negligent act because a firearm was discharged unintentionally that resulted in the injury or death of a human being.
It also helps make the argument that you yourself may not have really felt shooting was actually necessary at that point. Bringing further doubt to any self-defense argument.

However if you shoot someone in self-defense and claim it was intentional self defense (in a court of law after you let your lawyer know the facts), then you have committed a homicide (or violent felony that goes by different names in various states if they survive.)
The question is then whether it was a justifiable or not. A 'legal defense' to committing what is normally a crime. If it is deemed justifiable then you should be found guilty of no crime (of course justice does not always prevail in reality). If they determine it was not justified then it can be anything from various forms of manslaughter to murder under the law.


So if you're life is in danger and you claim the shooting itself was an accident, or agree with a prosecutor who is claiming it was, you are metaphorically shooting yourself in the foot, guaranteeing at minimum a charge for negligent homicide.
Something you are actually guilty of if it was an accident because you shot someone without meaning to through negligent handling of the firearm.
Which is certainly greater than being guilty of nothing if it was an intentional act of justifiable self-defense.

So if it was an accident you are in most cases at least guilty of something. While if it was intentional then it is either justified or not.



As for the the OP, it should not be an issue. The only time how easily the gun can or cannot go off is an issue is if a firearm is discharge accidentally. If you meant to pull the trigger then it does not matter how easily it went off (or in this case is even more difficult to discharge.)

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If it's a good shoot, it's a good shoot and there's really nothing the DA or Prosecutor can do to change that....

[1] We really have to get over this "a good shoot is a good shoot" business. If you are on trial after a self defense shooting, someone doesn't think it was a "good shoot." Either the DA decided that he had something to prosecute or the grand jury concluded that there was probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that you did it. There is a dispute about whether the shooting was justified, and determining whether it was a "good shoot" is now going to be up to the judge and/or jury.

You don't have the final say as to whether or not it's a "good shoot." Sometimes, probably often, the evidence may be substantial that your use of lethal force was justified self defense; and if that's the case, things like modifications to you gun pretty much won't matter.

But there's no guarantee that if a "bad day" happens to you, when the dust settles everyone will be agreed that it was a "good shoot." Physical evidence may be equivocal. Witnesses may tell conflicting stories.

[2] If it happens to you, there is no way you can know ahead of time whether in your particular case there will be ample evidence to support your claim of self defense or if, when the smoke clears, the evidence will be sparse that you were justified in using lethal force.

Everyone who has ever been on trial after a self defense shooting thought as he pulled the trigger that he was right -- that he had no choice. But the fact that he wound up on trial shows that in the aftermath the prosecutor found good reason to challenge the claim of justification and to believe that he could get a jury to agree.

[3] Of course if everyone who matters agree it's a justified shooting, things like alterations of the gun won't he an issue. But if there is a disagreement, and if you're going to have to be telling your story to a jury, things like alterations you have made to the gun could affect the impression that members of your jury have of you. Things that might bother a jury can influence how they evaluate you, your testimony and the evidence.

Remember that a big part of your legal defense will be you telling your story, and so the jury's take on you can matter. We know, from post verdict interviews of some of the jurors in the Harold Fish case (in gun friendly Arizona), that some of them were bothered by his use of a powerful gun (10mm) and JHP ammunition. (Fish was convicted of manslaughter and went to prison. He did win his appeal, and is now free. But the point is that the gun and ammunition affected how his jurors evaluated the evidence.)

[4] That said, I don't think that bobbing the hammer of a DA revolver and otherwise making it DA only is the kind of modification that is likely to be too troublesome. The potentially troublesome modifications are things like disabling a safety device or a "hair trigger" trigger job.

 

[Claude Clay]

primary carries are a 642, p11, p380 and a p239/40 for your reasons

only thing i say is that i never modify a gun that i carry.
let the manufacture or a licensed gun smith handle any necessaries.
i do not want to give the prosecution any 'ammunition' against me.
YMMV

 

[mljdeckard]

I have heard of more than one instructor, including Massad Ayoob, recommend that if you carry a revolver defensively, you should ONLY shoot it double-action, and it is recommended that you have the cocking notch and spur removed from the hammer.

What do you think is more likely to get you into trouble? A removed spur, or a light SA pull? I THINK, it would take some imagination to convince a jury that removing the spur made the gun LESS safe. In the never-ending questions we get in here re: handloads v factory, stock trigger v modified, 10mm v .......well ANYTHING, this one is splitting an imaginary legal hair.

 

[Cosmoline]

Some of you are way over-thinking this. There is NO WAY you can foresee all the possible events after a shooting. Nor are you in any position to speculate about what some unknown DA might or might not argue in an unknown trial after an unknown shooting. Modifying your firearm or your tactics out of hope that it will help your evidence at this trial of unknowns is sheer folly. Concentrate on surviving. Don't engage unless presented with imminent and unlawful deadly force. Keep your lips together and get a lawyer if things go south after that.

If you prefer the DAO, fine. If you don't trust yourself with a SA option, also fine. But do not make such modifications out of some hope that they'll help you make arguments in court.

A removed spur, or a light SA pull? I THINK, it would take some imagination to convince a jury that removing the spur made the gun LESS safe.

Not really. You've got some yahoo who's so fixated on shooting someone that he's attempted home gunsmithing. He's made his revolver able to kill even more quickly. And if the prosecutor finds the thread on THR he started, he has evidence from the defendant himself that the defendant made this modification in order to silence speculation at a subsequent trial.

Like I said, there's no end of theoretical arguments you can imagine some DA making. That's not something you should worry about. It's a waste of time. Know your weapon, know your code, and shoot straighter and faster than the guy trying to kill you. That's PLENTY for anyone to worry about.

 

[BP44]

LOOK you made a custom made killin machine

pro shooters mod there guns like that to shoot faster


It doesnt matter what you do as long as you do it within your legal rights, I often carry my mod 19 that has had the hammer bobbed and it still has single action.

 

[Art Eatman]

If I am going to remove the cocking spur from a revolver's hammer to make it basically DAO, I'm not concerned about the views of savvy shooters. It's because many who are not familiar with firearms would believe that DAO is safer. Perceptions and jurors.

Same for some "anti"-type prosecutor. He then can't try to shift the issue from "good shoot" to, "You didn't really need to shoot, but you were careless."

Perception. Your audience is not a bunch of regular gunfolks, of shooters. You're dealing with a completely different group...

 

[huntme]

you did not make it safer,you ruined your ability to draw and fire the gun accuratly.i would take it to a reptuable gun smith and get it fix.

 

[mljdeckard]

If you can't fire a revolver accurately in double-action, you need to practice more.