To remove or not to remove ... CA "features"

[Guapoh]

I wouldn't recommend it for any of your CCW guns.

[tacticalcity]

I take the "you have to be alive to be tried" approach. If you so much as add night sights or fancy looking grips the prosecutor could twist that into you trying to turn your gun into a death machine. So that is gonna happen...or not...and you can't really do anything about it. Your lawyer, if he is worth his salt, will be able to squash that. So I am not sure it's worth even worrying about. It's not that it won't happen. It's that it will one way or another regardless of what you do or don't do. That's what lawyers do and what lawyers are for. And it's not worth tying one hand behind your back in firefight...and that is what those features do in my opinion.

I am simply not going to cripple myself in a gun a fight. Things like magazine safeties...for example...do exactly that. Cripple your gun during magazine changes, preventing you from using the round in the chamber during that mag change...which goes against dogma of modern day gun fighting. That...without question...can get you killed in a gun fight. If a gun comes with it...I am taking it off. Period.

Now, all that said. Guns that come with stuff like that usually have a long list of other features (not all of which are removable) that make them less than the best choice for self defense to begin with. Not all of them...but a lot of them. If not most of them. So you have to ask yourself...is this the best gun for me? Maybe it is...I'm not judging. I'm just saying...if it is a tool for self defense and not just a toy...make sure it is suitable. If it is...great. If not, maybe that's not the the EDC gun.

I tend to lean towards guns that don't have those features. Stuff that has been on the roster forever and don't need it...and would NEVER make the roster if not for being grand fathered in. Glocks, 1911s, etc. The only gun I own that came with them is a 22lr plinker I was given as a gift. Even then...the very first thing I did was remove the mag safety. I just don't shoot/train/or even play that way.

[MrTokarev]

The risk of prosecution for modified "safety" features comes up all the time. However, I have yet to hear a substantiated case of someone being successfully tried and punished for it in a legitimate case of self defense.

I believe masaad ayoob does mention something in some article but it is short on any specifics as to who was prosecuted, who the DA was, and what the verdict was. I would try to find a real world example of someone being punished for removing their mag disconnect before I'd really worry about it. Otherwise, it seems to be FUD for the most part.

[downdiver2]

I live in CA and I am only able to purchase over the counter or off the shelf firearms, unless its a PPT.

When I do purchase any firearm, I immediately remove every CA safety feature. They do not help me the user, be more safe. I make my firearm more safe.

[Angrysnarf]

If a target/competition gun remove away. A gun for carry or HD, no

[MrTokarev]

Any particular reason?

[Erion929]

The risk of prosecution for modified "safety" features comes up all the time. However, I have yet to hear a substantiated case of someone being successfully tried and punished for it in a legitimate case of self defense.

I believe masaad ayoob does mention something in some article but it is short on any specifics as to who was prosecuted, who the DA was, and what the verdict was. I would try to find a real world example of someone being punished for removing their mag disconnect before I'd really worry about it. Otherwise, it seems to be FUD for the most part.

I'd agree. Unless you shoot someone INADVERTENTLY while your mag is laying on the ground, I fail to see where prosecution enters into play on a disabling of the mag disconnect. A good shoot is a good shoot.

[Angrysnarf]

I'd agree. Unless you shoot someone INADVERTENTLY while your mag is laying on the ground, I fail to see where prosecution enters into play on a disabling of the mag disconnect. A good shoot is a good shoot.

They may go with you made it easier for your gun to kill faster, laugh indeed but true

[MrTokarev]

Even if one argued that removing either feature made the gun less safe for children, passerbys, what have you, I doubt a case could of be made that it was more lethal when fired at a legitimate human target. Bullets fly the same, at the same rate, and only as many as allowed by our compliant magazines.

"Laugh indeed but true." Any evidence for this or is it just FUD? This topic comes up on calguns all the time and no one ever cites a case where someone got busted for a legitimate self defense shooting because they removed a mag safety or loaded chamber indicator.

[bsg]

I'd sell/trade and get what I really wanted.

[Opoponax]

I just got done citing several statutes here, and then deleted what I wrote because it may constitute legal advice. Therefore, deleted.

Potentially, altering the California specific features on a firearm might be what's known as a crime against the administration of justice.

I'd suggest consulting a lawyer before proceeding.

all center fire semiautomatic pistols which do not have a magazine disconnect mechanism if they have a detachable magazine,11 and similarly all rimfire semiautomatic pistols which do not have a magazine disconnect mechanism if they have a detachable magazine.12

The above is enough to give rise to caution. I don't know it would apply here, but I bolded what may. Again, consult an attorney who would know.

[MrTokarev]

I'm just not sure what your point is. It's perfectly legal to own or even buy a gun without those features. I'm not asking for legal advice but are you aware of any cases where someone got busted for removing the features from a "safe" pistol?

As far as I can tell, the posted law only defines an unsafe handgun, not any particular crime and it's potential punishment.

[MrTokarev]

Doesn't the unsafe handgun definition only apply to manufacturing and importing guns? Modifying and existing gun should be legal unless the law indicates otherwise. Which I have not seen.

[Opoponax]

Doesn't the unsafe handgun definition only apply to manufacturing and importing guns? Modifying and existing gun should be legal unless the law indicates otherwise. Which I have not seen.

That's why I said, "I don't know" and that if one has any doubts, they should ask a lawyer who could provide them with a definitive answer.

[Robert1234]

I just got done citing several statutes here, and then deleted what I wrote because it may constitute legal advice. Therefore, deleted.

Potentially, altering the California specific features on a firearm might be what's known as a crime against the administration of justice.

I'd suggest consulting a lawyer before proceeding.



The above is enough to give rise to caution. I don't know it would apply here, but I bolded what may. Again, consult an attorney who would know.

What about all the guns police departments buy that are not on the roster? Are police using unsafe handguns?

Arguments for this roster fall apart under the most cursory questioning. It's not a "Safe Handgun Roster", it's a "list of guns the California government will allow private citizens to own."