question about altering safety levers...

[mustang_steve]

Note this is not about disabling a safety. I'm just wondering if anyone knows of any case-law or has had some kind of first-hand info regarding any negative attention to a shortened or "profiled" safety lever on a pistol used in a self-defense scenario?

In this instance, the lever is in a less than ergonomic place, and re-profiling/shortening would remove hand interference with it during firing, while keeping the safety mechanism usable and intact.

I just want to make sure there's minimal odds of seeing legal flak over such a modification.

 

[ants]

As often as I've heard Internet advice that altering a pistol surely does expose one to liability, I would surely like to see it backed up by history. The modification you mention is done daily by gunsmiths and gun owners on 1911 pistols. In fact, a dozen excellent manufacturers sell thumb safeties with oversize levers so you can shape it to whatever profile you require. Not to mention grip safeties, triggers, slide stops, tactical bolts on a rifle, rail handguards, stocks, sights, etc etc etc.

 

[Old Fuff]

I don't think you have any problem at all. In theory, one could have some liability with a disabled safety because (true or not) it could be claimed that it resulted in an unintentional discharge of the firearm that caused injury or death, property loss, etc. In practice, such cases have been filed and gone forward, with undertermined results.

But this arguement cannot be made if the altered safety is still fully functional and can be operated normally. In that case the shape of the thumbpiece, lever, paddle - whatever you want to call it - is a moot point.

 

[mustang_steve]

That's what I was thinking folks...that there's no alteration to the function of the mechanism, just the shape/size of the lever.

I've been on a customization rampage as of late, and wanted to make sure this was at least a sound idea before I attempted it. Good info on the 1911s and some of them selling with safety levers with intent on modification to taste.

I'm still hoping to hear of any case-law though...I've been googling for some to see where it gets me.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I don't think this would be a significant problem. You're not disabling it. You're making the modification (if I understand it correctly) because you indeed intend to use the safety mechanism; and your proposed modification actually facilitates its use.

 

[Commander Crusty]

It would probably be wise to be able to explain WHY you wanted or needed this modification.

"I wanted to have the ultimate speed of fire when some scum bag tries to steel my hubcaps," just sounds terrible and I'm sure that's NOT what you had in mind.

"I believe a responsible gun owner should practice and be able to hit what they aim at without endangering innocent people. During long practice sessions, I found the extended safety uncomfortable, and had it professionally shaped to fit my hand better." That sounds much nicer and is probably closer to the truth.

 

[ants]

Google and Google, but I doubt there is anything to find. Reshaped safety lever is not a criminal violation. And so many civil actions get settled without a court decision that they never actually appear in the written history.

 

[mustang_steve]

I wanted the modification simply because I have rather large/fat hands and the safety levers (which are frame mounted, it's an ambidextrous safety) either get bumped back to the safe position while firing, or they dig into my hand. It's the only annoyance I have with my pistol....besides that I like it better than many other pistols I've tried out.

In essence this can be seen as an improvment in the design since it will behave in a consistant manner from that point on.

 

[pak29]

Steve,
Not sure if this is helpful, but the legal analysis of whether this poses a problem would be a question of causation. If a negligent discharge accident were to occur, this modification could be a basis for liability only if it is the sort of modification that makes an accidential shooting more likely. If the safety is no easier to take off accidentally or no more likely to fail to engage because of this modification, then you should have nothing to worry about. It sounds like you are talking about a subtle re-shaping. Still works as a safety; switches on the same; switches off the same- you're probably safe.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...but the legal analysis of whether this poses a problem would be a question of causation....

Not really. It's more a matter of possible jury perception. If you're that interested in the discussion (at least in connection with disabling a safety device), see http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=466935.

But since the modification apparently contemplated here is pretty innocuous, it should not present the same issues.

 

[Leanwolf]

I can't speak to the "modifying a safety lever," but I have a good friend in Calif., who had to use a "modified" pistol in self defense.

It was a Browning Hi-Power 9mm. He had removed the magazine disconnect which, in place, would prevent the pistol from being fired if the magazine were not in the pistol.

His self defense shoot was ruled by the D.A. as 100% justifiable. The "modification" of the Browning was never even a question.

L.W.

 

[Jim K]

In theory, Pak29 is right. But in the weird world of tort law, disabling any safety device could be pounced on as showing "wanton disregard for human life" or some similar claim, even if the component in question played no role in the incident.

The only somewhat similar instance I can recall off hand was that of a police officer who reduced the trigger pull of his service revolver. The gun went off accidentally and killed an innocent person. The department was let off the hook because what he did was strictly against regulations, and he was hit with a huge settlement as well as being fired.

That is why I am leery of advising people to work on ("tamper with") their carry guns or ammunition.

Jim

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

Lemme guess, Tokarev?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I have a good friend in Calif., who had to use a "modified" pistol in self defense.... His self defense shoot was ruled by the D.A. as 100% justifiable. The "modification" of the Browning was never even a question....

Many times a defensive use of a gun can readily be determined to be justified. If the evidence is clear that the use of the gun was justified, that will be the end of it (except for a possible civil suit), and it's unlikely that any modification of the gun would be an issue. A prosecutor is not going to be pursuing the case if all he has is that you used a modified gun. If you're being prosecuted, you will have enough problems with your situation that the DA figures he'll be able to get a jury to find you guilty. A modified gun, in those circumstances, will be only one of your problems.

And 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 probably 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.

 

[mustang_steve]

Not a Tokarev, my CPX-1. Despite the bad internet opinion of it, I find it to be a pretty solid and accurate firearm, I just dislike the really huge and reverse swinging safety lever. Down being the "fire" position.

My plan was to either shorten it by about 25-30% or to make an angled cut/profile to remove all of both levers that would be in line with my thumb and index knuckle when in the fire position. It's all a matter of which I think would be more functional. to shorten would make actuating the safety harder. The second method will leave release at factory difficulty, but may make re-engagement difficult. I'll have to study how my hands interact with it some more and make a final decision on which method.

Either way, I need to get off my keester and get some more dremel discs and something to place guide marks on the levers so I don't bubba it up.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the safety levers (which are frame mounted, it's an ambidextrous safety) either get bumped back to the safe position while firing, or they dig into my hand....

Ever tried shooting with a high thumb, i. e., keeping thumb on the safety? That's how I've been taught and how I handle my 1911s. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa50-plo48 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQgLmQl1zDw&feature=fvw .