Legal ramifications from changing a safety-What are they?

[ol' scratch]

I recently acquired a surplus FN Hi Power. I found a guide online on how to remove the mag safety. I am really glad I did remove it because it did lighten the trigger, but even better the mag drops free now. One of the guides mentioned legal ramifications associated with disabling a safety. What are those ramifications and why should I care?

 

[GEM]

Why should you care about legal ramifications? I don't know. Hmm?

Two things:

1. Did such lead to some accident that would have been prevented if not modified? Criminal and civil risks

2. If you use the gun in some shooting and it is not seen as the 'good shoot', will that mod be used against by the DA in explaining your mindset and motivation. Criminal and civil risks.

Thus, the legal ramifications are criminal and perhaps civil.

Standard arguments and flames can start now.

1. If it a good shoot - blah, blah.

2. Show me a case, blah. blah.

 

[Art Eatman]

Not particularly disagreeing with GEM, but it's a normal modification and absent accidents there likely would never be a problem. After all, the modification makes it identical in performance to millions of 1911s.

In a dozen years of Internetting about guns, I've not heard of anybody having legal problems from using a modified handgun in a self-defense situation. I think I'd PM Massad Ayoob to see if he knows of any such problems.

 

[Revolver218]

It "might" be a civil issue should someone be injured as a result of a safety device on any mechanism being removed or tampered with. An example would be a fan. If you removed the shield and someone stuck their hand in it you might be liable. Or if you sold a car and had removed the seat belts. The question for you to ask is what possible injury might occur as a result of my altering this device? Should any reasonable person forsee that such removal would be likely to cause injury to someone? It boils down to common sense. Did my actions make this device any less safe and, in doing so, is anyone likely to be injured? I hope this helps.

 

[Old Fuff]

Legal ramifications are pretty slim. In a court someone would have to show that removing the magazine disconector had a direct bearing on the incident where someone suffered injury (in the legal sense of the word) or death. The only circumstance that comes to mind is where someone removed the magazine, but didn't clear the chamber, and then because they thought the pistol wouldn't fire pulled the trigger, and it did.

I believe that current pistols are coming with magazine safeties is because the makers are worried about lawsuits, and I believe (but am not sure) that California, and perhaps a few other states may require them. If you are so unfortunate as to live in one of them I wouldn't remove the safety.

On Browning Hi-Power pistols, you can as an alternative, put a high polish on the safety's shoe where it rubs on the magazine, and on the front of the magazine where the shoe rubs. Then substitute a much lighter coil spring for the original one.

Personally, with one exception which was kept as a bedside gun, I always removed the magazine disconector and never gave it a second thought.

 

[ol' scratch]

Thanks everyone. I wasn't concerned, I have always just heard and read that there were unspecified legal ramifications. I was just curious.

 

[Kleanbore]

In a court someone would have to show that removing the magazine disconector had a direct bearing on the incident where someone suffered injury (in the legal sense of the word) or death. The only circumstance that comes to mind is where someone removed the magazine, but didn't clear the chamber, and then because they thought the pistol wouldn't fire pulled the trigger, and it did.

Sounds reasonable to me. Of course, if it were to happen, that might well be the cause, and in a civil suit the plaintiff's burden is a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The topic has been discussed a bunch of times here. See:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=586981

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=566648

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=550258

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=481801

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=466935

In any case, I'm not going to have a gun for self defense on which a safety device has been disabled. I've got plenty of suitable guns that haven't had a safety device disabled, so I see no reason to complicate matters for myself.

...In a dozen years of Internetting about guns, I've not heard of anybody having legal problems from using a modified handgun in a self-defense situation...

Art, that takes us to the question of how many folks have even used in self defense a gun on which a safety device has been disabled. It seems that most folks who have been involved in defensive gun uses aren't necessarily enthusiasts. It also seem that even most enthusiasts keep fairly stock guns for self defense -- or at least guns with all safety devices intact.

 

[JohnBT]

There is no law requiring a safety on a gun. There is no law forbidding their removal.

Brake lights on your car, yes; guns, no.

John

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Prosecutors and Plaintiff's lawyers are the kings of "what ifs." Any Prosecutor or PI lawyer who is after you is going make the most compelling argument he can that: If you had(n't) .................. then little Johnny would be fine. They are going to fill in that blank with something. There is nothing you can do about it except not hurt little Johnny in the first place.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There is no law requiring a safety on a gun. There is no law forbidding their removal...

That's really not the issue. There's no law in Arizona against using HPs for self defense. But we know from a post verdict juror interview, the members of Harold Fish's jury were negatively disposed towards him in part because of his use of HPs. We don't know how large a factor that, by itself, was in his conviction; but it could not have helped him. (And fortunately he won his appeal and is now a free man.)

So what if you're on trial over a shooting in which you claim self defense. What sort of impression will your having removed from your gun a perfectly functional safety device, installed by the manufacturer, make on a jury made up of people who have no knowledge of, or interest in, guns. Indeed, it's entirely possible that some members of your jury are at least a little afraid of guns and consider them to be wildly dangerous. How are such folks likely to feel about someone who removes a safety device from such a dangerous instrumentality? Might they consider such a person to be reckless? Might they question such a person's judgment?

Sure, if everyone agrees that your use of lethal force was justified, it won't matter. You won't be on trial.

But if the DA and/or grand jury decide that there is some good reason to dispute that your intentional commission of an act of extreme violence on another human being was justified, you will be charged and you will be on trial. Now it won't be a "good shoot" unless your trial jury concludes that it was.

And because you will need to put on evidence supporting your claim of justification, how your jury sees you will affect how they evaluate and respond to your story. The jury having some, even small, impression of you as in any way being a bit reckless or lacking in judgment won't help you.

But there is a very large difference between the HP issue that Fish had and disabling a safety device on your gun. HPs are more effective and especially appropriate for self defense. Using HPs gives you an advantage on the street and might therefore be worth a legal risk.

But one doesn't have to disable a safety device on one's gun to be able to effective defend himself. A Browning High Power can be effectively "combat tuned" without disabling the magazine disconnect. And if you really don't want a magazine disconnect, there are other suitable guns out there without that feature.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I'm not going to have a gun for self defense on which a safety device has been disabled.

Agreed. If you remove a safety, that gives an unscrupulous (or ignorant) ADA material he can use against you: who would remove a safety, except for someone who was recklessly unconcerned about safety? And that may play well with some jurors. Your job at trial has just become harder.

there is a very large difference between the HP issue that Fish had and disabling a safety device on your gun.

Agreed (again). For one thing, every officer or detective who testifies at trial, you can ask them if they use HPs in their duty gun; they will all say yes. Then ask them if they've disabled a safety in their duty gun; they will all say no.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I doubt that if it was used in self defense and taken in for evidence. I doubt the police would even know of the safety's existence in the Hi Power.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I doubt that if it was used in self defense and taken in for evidence. I doubt the police would even know of the safety's existence in the Hi Power.

If a firearm is fired in self defense or otherwise, it will be taken into evidence. If it is taken into evidence, standard procedure is to turn it over to a Certified Firearm and Tool Mark Examiner for examination. He (or she) will know all about Brownings and magazine disconnects, and he (or she) will determine if anything about the gun is "out of spec."

 

[pazsion]

Not a gun expert but...just saw this in google

Maybe if i fired one of these things myself i'd understand exactly what the issue is... but if it doesnt shoot before you draw it, or fire when it hits the ground...everytime it hits the ground...then it's just as safe, as if it had a safety that worked normally right?

"safe" and guns never went well together anyway...only safe gun is cleared and unloaded with a trigger lock

Let's hope it doesn't make it easier to shoot yur "leg" off

 

[Old Fuff]

The "safety" under discussion is called a magazine disconector. It's purpose is to prevent an accident if one gets mixed up, and while trying to unload a pistol, cycles the slide and ejects a round in the chamber, but then loads a fresh one into it. Then the user removes the magazine and presumes the chamber is empty - which it isn't. The correct procedure is to: (1) remove the magazine first, and (2) then clear the chamber.

A magazine disconector is designed to lock or otherwise disable the trigger group so that once the magazine is removed the pistol cannot be fired, regardless of if the chamber is, or isn't loaded. In short it is a mechanical device intended to protect a human from an issue caused by inattention or ignorance.

 

[gvf]

If you have no accidents or SD incidents it's fine.

If you do, at the very least, the effect of violating manufacturer's recommendations will not make you look good. And perception is a lot in a criminal or civil case. It's grist for the mill and would likely be used, at the very least to paint a picture of someone who goes off on his own irrespective of standard warnings and recommendations. Read a gun manual sometime, all the warnings in red. And think of an opposing attorney just showing a jury or a judge the same - and pointing out that you ignored these warnings.

Not so different than a driver in an accident-case who starts it out having disabled the emergency brake. You look like a risk-taker at the start of an accident case. Lotsa luck.......

 

[JohnBT]

"what if"

The OP's question was about "Legal ramifications", not a what if about what some people might or might not think about some unknown series of events in some future time and what they might or might not do about it.

There are no legal ramifications - no law against it.

 

[JohnBT]

"It's grist for the mill and would likely be used"

Can you cite a case where it was used?

 

[Loosedhorse]

"safety" under discussion is called a magazine disconector.

Sorry to disagree, Old Fuff, but it is not. At least, that is not what Browning or FN calls it; to them it's a "magazine safety."

Please check out the on-line owner's manual (it's a pdf) from Browning; and this FN Herstal product info page on the High Power. Listed as a "magazine safety" in both.

Now, sure, one could argue in court that both Browning and FN don't know what they're talking about. After all, they've had, what, 76 years to smarten up and remove that unneeded safety, and they still haven't done it!

 

[Old Fuff]

I didn't say what FN called it...

I described what it is, and what it does. As is often the case, different manufacturers describe the same part(s) and functions using different terminology. It is a “safety” to the degree that it locks or disables the firing system/ trigger group (whatever) when the magazine is removed. It also prevents someone involved in an active shooting from firing the last shot in his pistol if the magazine is unintentionally dropped. Or it may require two hands to fully remove a magazine. This doesn’t necessarily make a user safer.

I have on occasion:

1. Removed the magazine disconector/safety.

2. Modified it as described in an earlier post so that it still functional but does not interfere with dropping an empty magazine, or add meaningful weight to the trigger pull. (The chicken-out solution ).

3. Used a different pistol where the devise was never installed in the first place. (Most often used solution).

So far I have survived for many decades without my sidearm going off unless I intended it to.

So there!!!!

 

[Snowbandit]

My personal rule is to never modify a guns safety device beyond what the company is willing to do for its customers. For instance, if I buy a gun with a mag safety and the company sells the same model to other customers without the safety then I can remove it. If the company never made, sold or authorized that modification, then I leave it alone.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Fair enough, Fuff!

 

[Old Fuff]

My personal rule is to never modify a guns safety device beyond what the company is willing to do for its customers. For instance, if I buy a gun with a mag safety and the company sells the same model to other customers without the safety then I can remove it. If the company never made, sold or authorized that modification, then I leave it alone.

That's a bad way to look at it. It's people like you that keep driving up the prices on older Smith & Wesson revolvers :banghead:.

Have you any idea how hard it is to steal them, even from old widd'er ladies... ? I may be forced into having to make fair offers. :banghead:

 

[Snowbandit]

That's a bad way to look at it. It's people like you that keep driving up the prices on older Smith & Wesson revolvers :banghead:.

Have you any idea how hard it is to steal them, even from old widd'er ladies... ? I may be forced into having to make fair offers. :banghead:

Don't get me wrong here. The lock on my 340 M&P is long gone too. It's not needed because S&W sells the same, and similar, guns without the lock. As far as you paying the old widd'er ladies a fair price; well, you should have been doing that all along anyway. Hope you're making it up to them somehow.