Relying on the lock for storage safety is moronic. My out of service firearms are almost always locked up in a safe of some kind.

Anti gun tort whores will file anything and argue all sorts of drivel, just like the anti-cop nutters. Proper defense will result in terms and bar discipline. I rarely see well done defense in the latter, and don't expect it in the former. I suspect proper defense, which among other things requires enough technical knowledge to know that such a claim would be frivolous, is lacking. I can only think of one really aggressive defense of LE that was well done; just happened last week in of all places Seattle. The judge actually pulled up her Huggies and hammered the plaintiffs.

The fact that 18DAI has direct knowledge of agencies banned lock equipped revolvers, and why, is a clue. I don't care what the odds of such a failure are - the fact that it can and has occurred is enough, because the lock serves no legitimate purpose. It is there only for political reasons because at the time, no one in a position of responsibility at S&W was a leader, and as such did not have the skill or the spine to call out the moonbats for their silliness. Now, there still are not, or the truth would have won out. This is similar to the spineless garbage I see far too often from LE command officers with regard to use of force. I see it far too often in many fields - people afraid to express reality to the delusional for fear of being considered "mean". We need a lot more R. Lee Ermey and a lot less Dale Carnegie.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.