642/442 safety removal

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bullnettles

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
461
Location
Houston
Ok, I did a search and came up empty handed. I see how to remove it and know I could, but if I ever used the gun in self-defense, would this become an issue? I live in TX where we have a good amount of rights as the victim.
 
You might expect to get both answers here.

I don't believe if would ever become an issue. How would the prosecutor/investigators even know?
 
I don't know of a case where that kind of thing has been an issue, but I wouldn't be concerned in a criminal case where the question of legitimate self-defense would be the over-riding issue. But in a civil suit, where a greedy lawyer has no interest in anything but buying a new mansion, you could be accused of recklessness in removing a safety; that it had nothing to do with the case would be ignored.

I have seen many rants about that lock, and am convinced that there is really no problem. I would leave the lock alone.

Just FWIW, the same thing would be true about removing ANY safety device. No matter the reason, no matter that it had no bearing on the situation, removing a safety device can (and will) be made to look like disabling the brakes on a car - an action so reckless and so careless of human life that anyone who would do such a thing should be made to pay heavily.

Jim
 
When you say "safety," I presume you mean the internal lock.

The lock is not what is usually thought of as a safety, which is a device to prevent an unintentional discharge, or to prevent a discharge if the gun is dropped or the hammer suffers a hard blow.

The purpose of the internal lock is to provide a method whereby the gun can be secured against unauthorized use. For example if it is discovered by a child.

Any liability that might occur would be if the gun owner failed to secure the gun - either using the internal lock or an alternative method - and as a result of the owner's negligence someone was able to obtain control of the gun, and used it in some way as to cause damage, injury or death.

A number of states and/or cities have laws that cover negligent storage of firearms, and require owners to secure their guns against unauthorized use, but as far as I know, none specify the exact method that must be used.
 
CoRoMo said:
...How would the prosecutor/investigators even know?
Click to expand...
If you have fired your gun, even if you are claiming self defense, it would be standard procedure for your gun to be taken as evidence. It will then be examined by a Firearm and Tool Mark Examiner. He will be able to determine that a safety device has been disabled or removed.

With regard to the OP's question, these threads may be helpful:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=500905

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=480258

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=466935
 
Well, it may not be today, but I will be removing it. It isn't a safety and I will make sure my lawyer pushes that point if it comes to it. If there is the slightest chance (and I know I've read a couple of posts SOMEWHERE about it going on lock) that my gun won't fire, I'm going to get rid of that factor. I'd rather make it to trial than be smelling the inside of a pine box any day.
 
Ahh yes, and thank you everyone for your input, and no thanks to S&W for giving in and actually making this a topic :(
 
I don't have any links or direct quotes but I do know that over the years Mas Ayoob as written many articles about this sort of thing. According to him any gun used in a shooting will be thoroughly examined and any alterations or modifications will be noted and passed on to the police and DAs.

Get a gun that does not come with that ILS from the factory.
 
As long as you have a competent, well informed lawyer, it SHOULDN'T be an issue.

There's a guy on the S&W Forum who makes and sells plugs to cover the hole once you remove the ILS. They appear to be of high quality.

Personally, I prefer the pre-lock guns. I've never owned an ILS gun and certainly would never trust my life to one with it installed.
 
If there is the slightest chance (and I know I've read a couple of posts SOMEWHERE about it going on lock) that my gun won't fire, I'm going to get rid of that factor. I'd rather make it to trial than be smelling the inside of a pine box any day.
Click to expand...
If I were concerned that the internal lock might cause the gun to malfunction when needed most, then I would choose a different self-defense/carry gun rather than remove the lock.

Removing the lock is replacing one risk (gun malfunction) with another risk (mischaracterization of the lock removal), when you can completely avoid both by simply choosing a different gun. While I consider both risks to be remote indeed, the fact remains that both *are* valid risks.
 
Very true, it just stinks that I bought this gun as my main carry piece and now some back-row fears are beginning to worry me. I'll look around for a trade. Thanks again everyone for the input.
 
Removing the lock is replacing one risk (gun malfunction) with another risk (mischaracterization of the lock removal), when you can completely avoid both by simply choosing a different gun. While I consider both risks to be remote indeed, the fact remains that both *are* valid risks.
Click to expand...
There have been so many instances of the lock failing that there was a thread on the S&W forum devoted solely to reports.

I'm unaware of any verified instances of someone being indicted, much less convicted after they used a revolver with the lock removed in an otherwise good shoot. Doesn't mean it can't happen. However, to the best of my knowledge, it never HAS.
 
I did some Googling, and near as I can tell there is no law yet prohibiting the removal of a firearm safety device. However, this sounds exactly like a law antis would implement. If they haven't thought of it yet, I'd be surprised.
 
Bad WardenWolf. Hope they don't read that!! Haha. I had NO idea they were selling the old type again!!! Good job S&W.
 
I'm interning in a Texas county DA's office (awaiting bar results for two more weeks, so I'm not licensed... yet), and I can tell you that most prosecutors know jack about guns, although most of them think they know enough to get by. I think we have one guy besides myself who reloads and shoots often. We are both often asked these types of questions. Their ignorance can work for or against you.

While working there, I've heard concerns about whether they could prove intent to harm where a defendant never cocked the gun (it was a DA auto). I've heard inquiries as to whether the defendant had hollowpoints while looking for the same proof (same case). The fact that a guy owns the same caliber gun as the murder weapon has been used as evidence many times (who doesn't own at least one 9mm? Seriously.)

If they hear that an internal lock was removed, it will be more important what their initial impression is of the type of person who would do this than whether they really understand what the modification is. Be ready to explain that your model of gun had issues with the lock automatically engaging, and you preferred to have it removed since the lock was unnecessary. Also be ready to explain why it was unnecessary (i.e. it stays in a holster and is never left unattended, etc).

In all, I think it's fine and this is all a bit of paranoia, but it really could be a problem if you were the unlucky soul who got the brand new felony prosecutor who happened to be anti-gun, anti-SD, and still wanted to live and work in Texas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top