Back in the day, when I carried my 4506, the department armorer removed the magazine safety, so it would fire if the magazine was removed, a clear change from the standard configuration of the 4506 at that time, but deemed essential in law enforcement.

At some point there was a recall and the grip panel was to be replaced (at no charge) at a S&W warranty station.

There was a place in Plano, I cannot recall the name of the shop that was a factory authorized repair station, so I traveled up there and to have the replacement take place.

At some point, they discovered that the magazine safety had been removed and there was quite an uproar and finally I put my foot down and said, (something to the effect) "my department has determined that the magazine safety is not in my best interest and the department armorer removed it so if you don't like it too bad, now replace the grips and I'll be on my way".

I have heard many urban legands where modified handguns have been "eaten alive" by defense or plantiff attorneys but have little first hand reports where this has actually happened.

I would love to hear of actual court decisions where a modified handgun, especially one that has been described where a spring was replaced to allow a shooter with a health condition to easily pull the trigger.

I think that a modification to allow a person to actually make the gun function should be easily defended in court.

I certainly could be proven wrong but would invite some of our learned counselors to weigh in on this.

__________________
I am a sheep dog!
1601 (ret)