CA vs. Non-CA Shield

[pastureofmuppets]

I call BS on this!

Please explain how disabling the magazine safety makes the firearm more lethal. How does it make it more accurate? How does it make it shoot faster? How does it make the owner of the tool crazy and blood thirsty?

Stop being afraid of the government!

It's perceptions being painted to a jury by a prosecuting attorney. You took a safety feature off because you wanted to shoot someone... removing a safety feature shows you are reckless about owning a firearm... etc etc.

End up in court... you want to be done and dusted as quick as possible by giving the DA nothing to try and work with. Anything that can be brought up is another hurdle for defense to possibly slip up on.

Saying that, look for a real life example.

Maybe having an ND that hurts someone and being sued... and the mag wasn't in...

I dunno. Kind of reaching really.

[erik_26]

It's perceptions being painted to a jury by a prosecuting attorney. You took a safety feature off because you wanted to shoot someone... removing a safety feature shows you are reckless about owning a firearm... etc etc.

End up in court... you want to be done and dusted as quick as possible by giving the DA nothing to try and work with. Anything that can be brought up is another hurdle for defense to possibly slip up on.

Saying that, look for a real life example.

Maybe having an ND that hurts someone and being sued... and the mag wasn't in...

I dunno. Kind of reaching really.

Couple things:

-A defense attorney that is worth anything would explain to the jury that modifying weapons is not illegal.

-A defense attorney that is worth anything would explain that there are many common use arms without these features available.

-A defense attorney that is worth anything would explain that modifying a weapon doesn't make anyone 'blood thirsty'.

-A defense attorney that is worth anything would explain how every day law abiding citizens modifying the weapons is common practice, i.e. changing sights, trigger jobs, weapon lights, weapon lasers, paint jobs, rails, grips... etc.

If you used the appropriate use of force to stop a threat, you won't be hearing from a DA.

[erik_26]

Sorry, I am a lawyer and I see the Government in action all the time.

I am afraid of the Government. Any sane person would be.

I think it is a mistake to remove a safety feature on a gun. It just looks bad if you ever have to explain it in court. Picture yourself answering a question: "So you thought that you knew what was safe better than Smith and Wesson does?" -- "How long have you been in the business of making and selling guns? How long do you think Smith and Wesson has?" "But you felt you knew better than they did?" Good luck with that.

Feel free to disagree. My clients often disagree with me until they are in court.

Please site what law has been broken by modifying personal property, such as a firearm?

Specifically, show me the law that states it is illegal to disable a safety feature on a firearm.

[riderr]

Please site what law has been broken by modifying personal property, such as a firearm?

Specifically, show me the law that states it is illegal to disable a safety feature on a firearm.

If you find a fearless DA, who classifies LCI or mag disconnect removal as unsafe gun manufacturing, you will be charged with PC 12125(a). Otherwise, it's yours to play with.

[erik_26]

If you find a fearless DA, who classifies LCI or mag disconnect removal as unsafe gun manufacturing, you will be charged with PC 12125(a). Otherwise, it's yours to play with.

Please explain:

What is the difference between a CA shield and non-CA shield?

Please answer, is the CA-shield more or less lethal then a non-CA shield?

Does a CA shield shoot more or less accurately than a non-CA shield?

Does a CA shield fire more or less ammunition than a non-CA shield?

Is a CA shield more or less easier to use than a non-CA shield?

Is a non-CA shield illegal to own, posses and use in the state of California?

With or without a magazine safety disconnect, would both guns fire with the magazine fully inserted?

With the magazine removed, would both guns fire?

With the magazine disconnect disabled, would both guns fire?

Does this modification make the CA version more dangerous than the non-CA version?

[rogervzv]

If you find a fearless DA, who classifies LCI or mag disconnect removal as unsafe gun manufacturing, you will be charged with PC 12125(a). Otherwise, it's yours to play with.

This.

Anyway, I carry my CA compliant Shield every day and I absolutely love the gun. It is fun to shoot at the range and I know that I can trust my life to it. I absolutely like the manual safety and the LCI. Both of these are features to me. The magazine safety I do not care about one way or the other. The trigger on my Shield is really good, so the mag safety at least has done no harm. I don't plan on shooting the gun with no magazine inserted so I don't care about that.

Fellas, all I'm saying is that I've seen lawyers in trial make a very big deal out of things a lot more innocuous than removing a safety feature on a handgun. I would be afraid to do it. You fearless chaps out there will do as you like I am imagining and that is certainly your privilege. I am just telling you that things often sound different in court than they do when we are shooting the bull on a gun enthusiast forum like this one.

[erik_26]

This.

Anyway, I carry my CA compliant Shield every day and I absolutely love the gun. It is fun to shoot at the range and I know that I can trust my life to it. I absolutely like the manual safety and the LCI. Both of these are features to me. The magazine safety I do not care about one way or the other. The trigger on my Shield is really good, so the mag safety at least has done no harm. I don't plan on shooting the gun with no magazine inserted so I don't care about that.

Fellas, all I'm saying is that I've seen lawyers in trial make a very big deal out of things a lot more innocuous than removing a safety feature on a handgun. I would be afraid to do it. You fearless chaps out there will do as you like I am imagining and that is certainly your privilege. I am just telling you that things often sound different in court than they do when we are shooting the bull on a gun enthusiast forum like this one.

Lawyers can make a big deal out of anything they want.

There is zero difference in the lethality of the CA Shield vs. Non-CA Shield.

Both firearms will fire with the magazines fully inserted.

Disabling a magazine release safety doesn't magically make a firearm more dangerous or the end user blood thirsty. Just as changing the sights, adding a weapon light/laser, changing the grips, down to the ammunition you select to use don't magically make a firearm more dangerous or the end user blood thirsty.

I think that in a clean shoot, abundance of evidence that your life was in danger, this would be a mute issue and wouldn't even go to trial as no crime was committed.

The only risk I see would be in civil court where it would be your fault for an unprovoked attack anyways.

I would like real lawyers to weigh in on all this.