CA vs. Non-CA Shield

[Riffplayer88]

I think the safety message on the side is kind of cool, actually.

[perpetual otter]

I guess I'm just a maverick.

LoL

/end thread

[segfault]

The caution msg is on the right side so you don't really notice it if you're right handed.

But yea they could've made it a sticker instead of an engraving.

[MrSam]

Would there be any way to peel off the white layer? I'm assuming its not anodized. In any case, it doesn't bother me.
I'm still on the fence about the shield, but it honestly seems to be the best bang for your buck CCW type handgun

[Justintoxicated]

Would there be any way to peel off the white layer? I'm assuming its not anodized. In any case, it doesn't bother me.
I'm still on the fence about the shield, but it honestly seems to be the best bang for your buck CCW type handgun

Who cares, whether or not it has a magazine safety is the much more important decision.

As far as removing a magazine safety and getting yourself into trouble. I CAN see that. This is California. Ever sat on a jury? To most people if you own a gun your already at 70% fault right off the bat. Not saying this is right, that's just the way I feel it IS.

If the "issue" was that a kid got their hands on it, and accidentally shot someone or themselves because they thought it was unloaded after they removed the magazine, I would expect to have issues in court, because the safety could have saved a life.

But that's just my opinion, maybe if you wrote "capable of being fired without magazine" on the side it solves that problem.
On the other hand, in a defensive situation I think I would prefer having no extra magazine safety.

But trust me the parent of the dead child IS at least going to come after you for this.

[erik_26]

Who cares, whether or not it has a magazine safety is the much more important decision.

As far as removing a magazine safety and getting yourself into trouble. I CAN see that. This is California. Ever sat on a jury? To most people if you own a gun your already at 70% fault right off the bat. Not saying this is right, that's just the way I feel it IS.

If the "issue" was that a kid got their hands on it, and accidentally shot someone or themselves because they thought it was unloaded after they removed the magazine, I would expect to have issues in court, because the safety could have saved a life.

But that's just my opinion, maybe if you wrote "capable of being fired without magazine" on the side it solves that problem.
On the other hand, in a defensive situation I think I would prefer having no extra magazine safety.

But trust me the parent of the dead child IS at least going to come after you for this.

I am throwing the BS flag on this one too!

You are responsible for every round that leaves that barrel, regardless of the safety features and intended target.

If a child finds your firearm and injures/kills someone with it, you are done! Regardless of safety features. The safety doesn't make the tool anymore or less dangerous.

When I have an active safety on any of my firearms in use, I don't go pointing them and waving them around at people or any unintended target and yell, "it's cool, the safety is on!". That would be absurd. I still treat the firearm with the same level of respect and always use safe handling techniques, get this... even when they are confirmed not loaded.

When my firearms are not in my possession, they are locked in a safe.

Disabling a safety device on a firearm is not against the law, yet.

To suggest that you would be in 'extra' trouble accidentally injuring/killing someone because of negligence with vs. without a disabled safety is preposterous!

[saudadeii]

Not all non-mag safety semis have the "warning". My Sig doesn't (it's still on roster). My 1911s don't (one on, one off). My PPQs don't (both off).

My Shield does. It is *not* engraved/embossed or even white.

My M&P9 FS and Compact came with mag discos. I've removed the one in my compact. Quite frankly, I'm "meh" on mag disconnects as well as the "warnings".

None have "flags" for LCIs. I find the "Loaded When Up" engraved into the flag and etched onto the slide most distasteful. There's no way I could live with that even if I got a discount. I gladly pay extra. My non-CA, non safety Shield cost $35 more than the CA model. A small price to pay for my own consumer satisfaction.

[Johnny Utah]

Non CA is the only way to go.

[Riffplayer88]

I am throwing the BS flag on this one too!

You are responsible for every round that leaves that barrel, regardless of the safety features and intended target.

If a child finds your firearm and injures/kills someone with it, you are done! Regardless of safety features. The safety doesn't make the tool anymore or less dangerous.

When I have an active safety on any of my firearms in use, I don't go pointing them and waving them around at people or any unintended target and yell, "it's cool, the safety is on!". That would be absurd. I still treat the firearm with the same level of respect and always use safe handling techniques, get this... even when they are confirmed not loaded.

When my firearms are not in my possession, they are locked in a safe.

Disabling a safety device on a firearm is not against the law, yet.

To suggest that you would be in 'extra' trouble accidentally injuring/killing someone because of negligence with vs. without a disabled safety is preposterous!

Yea, you're bringing up the real issue: are people treating the firearm with less safety because it has an added "safety" feature. If that's the case, that person will find themselves in deep s**t in a jury of their peers.

[Justintoxicated]

I am throwing the BS flag on this one too!

You are responsible for every round that leaves that barrel, regardless of the safety features and intended target.

If a child finds your firearm and injures/kills someone with it, you are done! Regardless of safety features. The safety doesn't make the tool anymore or less dangerous.

When I have an active safety on any of my firearms in use, I don't go pointing them and waving them around at people or any unintended target and yell, "it's cool, the safety is on!". That would be absurd. I still treat the firearm with the same level of respect and always use safe handling techniques, get this... even when they are confirmed not loaded.

When my firearms are not in my possession, they are locked in a safe.

Disabling a safety device on a firearm is not against the law, yet.

To suggest that you would be in 'extra' trouble accidentally injuring/killing someone because of negligence with vs. without a disabled safety is preposterous!

I agree with what you said. But my point still stands. Say these kids broke into your house, stole the gun, then accidentally shot their friend because they don't know anything about handguns or handgun safety.

Yes they shouldn't have it in the first place, they violate all handguns safety basics. It's still one more thing to go after you for should they get a hold of it anyways. It's not all that fathomable to dream up, even if you keep it locked up... Think about the mindset of most Californians when it comes to firearms. Rational thinking involving guns went right out the window years ago. can see it now.

Typical Anti Gun Californian:
"My Son would be alive...If this man had not disabled the magazine safety on this handgun, his friend who stole it would not have accidentally shot him when he thought it was unloaded. It is this man's fault for creating such a dangerous weapon"

defendant: "Well not all guns come with magazine safety's on them, including other versions of this one, they illegally stole the gun from my house and then committed manslaughter with it. How can I possibly be guilty for their crimes"

"but yours did come with that safety feature and you remove it and now my son is dead so it is partially your fault"


Of course not all guns have the warning! None of my handguns have magazine safeties on them. I don't think any of them have warnings either. I was exaggerating about adding that label to them. But who knows, maybe some dummy would read it and be like "oh, I better check the chamber"...

Now if the gun never had a mag safety they couldn't possibly blame you for removing it. Just my thoughts. However if I got the CA version shield I would probably still remove it anyways, but I do think there is some risk
Magazine safeties are not all bad, they can prevent ADs, no, I mean NDs. Go watch youtube for people showing how to take the weapon down, accidentally loading a round in it then firing it on accident. I just prefer not to have them, especially on something I would carry, I want simple not complicated.

[riderr]

I agree with what you said. But my point still stands. Say these kids broke into your house, stole the gun, then accidentally shot their friend because they don't know anything about handguns or handgun safety.

Yes they shouldn't have it in the first place, they violate all handguns safety basics. It's still one more thing to go after you for should they get a hold of it anyways. It's not all that fathomable to dream up, even if you keep it locked up... Think about the mindset of most Californians when it comes to firearms. Rational thinking involving guns went right out the window years ago. can see it now.

Typical Anti Gun Californian:
"My Son would be alive...If this man had not disabled the magazine safety on this handgun, his friend who stole it would not have accidentally shot him when he thought it was unloaded. It is this man's fault for creating such a dangerous weapon"

defendant: "Well not all guns come with magazine safety's on them, including other versions of this one, they illegally stole the gun from my house and then committed manslaughter with it. How can I possibly be guilty for their crimes"

"but yours did come with that safety feature and you remove it and now my son is dead so it is partially your fault"


Of course not all guns have the warning! None of my handguns have magazine safeties on them. I don't think any of them have warnings either. I was exaggerating about adding that label to them. But who knows, maybe some dummy would read it and be like "oh, I better check the chamber"...

Now if the gun never had a mag safety they couldn't possibly blame you for removing it. Just my thoughts. However if I got the CA version shield I would probably still remove it anyways, but I do think there is some risk
Magazine safeties are not all bad, they can prevent ADs, no, I mean NDs. Go watch youtube for people showing how to take the weapon down, accidentally loading a round in it then firing it on accident. I just prefer not to have them, especially on something I would carry, I want simple not complicated.

This is what's called a frivolous lawsuit.

[pitbull30]

Everyone should buy the non-CA model just because its a non-CA model.

/end short rant.

[erik_26]

I agree with what you said. But my point still stands. Say these kids broke into your house, stole the gun, then accidentally shot their friend because they don't know anything about handguns or handgun safety.

Yes they shouldn't have it in the first place, they violate all handguns safety basics. It's still one more thing to go after you for should they get a hold of it anyways. It's not all that fathomable to dream up, even if you keep it locked up... Think about the mindset of most Californians when it comes to firearms. Rational thinking involving guns went right out the window years ago. can see it now.

Typical Anti Gun Californian:
"My Son would be alive...If this man had not disabled the magazine safety on this handgun, his friend who stole it would not have accidentally shot him when he thought it was unloaded. It is this man's fault for creating such a dangerous weapon"

defendant: "Well not all guns come with magazine safety's on them, including other versions of this one, they illegally stole the gun from my house and then committed manslaughter with it. How can I possibly be guilty for their crimes"

"but yours did come with that safety feature and you remove it and now my son is dead so it is partially your fault"


Of course not all guns have the warning! None of my handguns have magazine safeties on them. I don't think any of them have warnings either. I was exaggerating about adding that label to them. But who knows, maybe some dummy would read it and be like "oh, I better check the chamber"...

Now if the gun never had a mag safety they couldn't possibly blame you for removing it. Just my thoughts. However if I got the CA version shield I would probably still remove it anyways, but I do think there is some risk
Magazine safeties are not all bad, they can prevent ADs, no, I mean NDs. Go watch youtube for people showing how to take the weapon down, accidentally loading a round in it then firing it on accident. I just prefer not to have them, especially on something I would carry, I want simple not complicated.

Sir, I think you are reaching.

I still have committed no crime modifying my weapon, including disabling a safety feature.

My point still stands, disabling the magazine safety feature on a California version of the M&P Shield does not make the weapon more or less lethal.

Out of an abundance of caution you are free to not modify your weapon in fear of extra prosecution and frivolously fantasy civil law suits.

Please do not spread FUD.

[uechikid]

Read here about the OP's woes. Same boat as your's.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=987566

Buy once, cry once...it's worth SSE'ing the non Cali version if you have any doubts at all about the LCI and mag disco.

If ANYTHING you are thinking of buying doesn't appeal to you 100%, it's not worth buying, no matter what the savings. Great house, crappy neighborhood.....a car with great MPG, but crappy styling and design.....guns are no different.

Great advice.

[pastureofmuppets]

Mag disconnect I don't have a problem with, LCI... if it's avoidable I say avoid it. It's of no real use for responsible gun owners with good safety habits. It's a law made for gun owners by non gun owners and just something else to go wrong.