My friend who is a Smith and Wesson Armorer said that he could easily remove the internal lock and fill the hole where you wouldn't know it was there.This greatly appeals to me because I don't want the possibility of it spontaneouly locking.A police officer where I shoot suggested against it. Being it is one of my carry guns,he said if I were to use it in a defensive situation they would be all over me in court for "actively disabling or removing a safety device".If this is the case I will just live with it,if not away it goes.I humbly request your sage advice on this matter.Thanks for your time and God Bless......Mike

My friend who is a Smith and Wesson Armorer said that he could easily remove the internal lock and fill the hole where you wouldn't know it was there.This greatly appeals to me because I don't want the possibility of it spontaneouly locking.A police officer where I shoot suggested against it. Being it is one of my carry guns,he said if I were to use it in a defensive situation they would be all over me in court for "actively disabling or removing a safety device".If this is the case I will just live with it,if not away it goes.I humbly request your sage advice on this matter.Thanks for your time and God Bless......Mike

Your police officer friend is correct. When it comes down to shootings they will use everything they can against you in court. And that would show that you had no respect for safety items and they would use that to say you are careless. I know it is a bunch bull. but you don't want to give them anything if you can help it. That is also why you should NEVER USE RELOADS FOR DEFENSE.

__________________
May God Bless The USA

If you are involved in a shooting as a non LEO (and that doesn't hold anymore for LEOs) then you will go to civil court and defend yourself against Tyron's family because he was about to get his life together and become a world famous heart surgeon.

IMHO, if you have a competent defense attorney he will show that your "disabled, dangerous" firearm never discharged in your pocket, your home or you vehicle. It only discharged when you felt, nay knew, you life was in danger. It doesn't matter, once you pull that trigger regardless of what criminal law says you have to face civil responsibility no matter how rediculous.

I personally would not trust a lockable gun for defense. Cheaper to buy a non-lock version of the same gun. I also pray that I would never have to use it in my world.

My two cents...

I have a J frame with the internal lock. Bought it used and in very good condition. I was told that I could remove the IL (I'm not interested in resale), and if the issue ever surfaced, I could produce the receipt showing it was purchased used. The inference of course, would be that the previous owner had removed the IL. I pondered the decision long and hard. Did my research and concluded the IL is more detriment than an advantage. I removed the IL and kept the parts with the receipt. I think if I ever have to use it, I will be very candid and forthright about all of the details - to my lawyer. I will then consider his/her advice and respond accordingly.

Regards,

Dave

In the event the lock is removed, I guess I would argue that there seems to be much documentation about occasional failures of the lock. Since the lock was removed, you had an alternative method for safe storage, such as a lock box or trigger lock, etc.

The lock would have been deactivated for carry anyway, so the lack of the lock means nothing with respect to whether the perpetrator would have gotten shot. As to the question of whether you are a nutcase with homicidal tendencies as shown by your removal of the lock, I would think your reasons could be adequately explained so a jury could understand that those reasons relate not to your willingness or desire to kill someone, but to your desire to make sure your means of self defense does not fail in time of need.

I assume that your attorney would be able to point out that S&Ws did not have this feature until recently, that other companies don't have it at all, that it was mandated by some states, not yours, that S&W still manufactures revolvers without the feature (current 642s, 37s, 40s and supposedly 442s), that most semi-auto pistols don't have such a feature, that there are some documented failures of the device, that you safely store your weapon by other means, which is the only reason the lock is needed in the first place, as it would never be carried with the lock activated, and that this action of deactivating the lock was the effort of a responsible person to make sure his chosen method of self defense did not fail at the wrong time, etc.

I still don't understand why, if S&W can make the lock an option on autos, the lock cannot be offered as an option on revolvers. That way, customers could decide.

If it bothers you that much, just pull the entire thing out. You are aware of the issues and you can just roll the dice on the chances of lock failure versus having it come back to haunt you in the event of a shooting.

If your car alarm prevents the engine from starting when it "goes off," and you heard about failures where owner's cars get disabled, thereby stranding the motorist due to "false alarms," then would you be having this heartburn about unplugging the damned thing? I think not, even though deactivating the alarm might make it easier for a thief to steal your car and run over someone while fleeing the crime.

I see the issue the same as diabling a burglar alarm on your car. It might require explanation, but I do not see it as insurmountable. Besides I would be willing to bet that only a very tiny minority of S&W owners (or any other brand for that matter) actually use those on board locks, and I presume that most who have one or more do not always carry a key.

You can be sued no matter what you do unless you live in a state that does not allow civil damages if the shooting is ruled justified.

Since Ohio is one of those states, and since the lock is a STORAGE device and REQUIRED to be disengaged when carrying the firearm, it's bearing on the legality of the shooting or your state of mind is NONE.

Taking legal advice from a policeman is akin to taking medical advice from a phramacy technician. Neither are experts in the field of inquiry. I get my legal advice from my lawyer. That's what he gets paid to do. Cops get paid to arrest criminals, not defend them.

And yes, I have disabled the lock on both revolvers that had them when I bought them. I carry both of them and lose not one second of sleep over it.

I agree 100% with Wyatt Earp, it's a storage lock not a safety. No different than a trigger lock or padlock, just built in.

The only legal problem would be if you disabled the lock, someone didn't know it, locked it and was injured or killed because it didn't work.

__________________
Ron
NRA Life Member

Esteemed, seated members of the jury, presiding honorable judge _______ and fellow members of this hallowed proceeding; please take note that I removed the internal safety as assurance that proper ignition would result from my squeezing the trigger on the alleged scumbag in question while executing, to the best of my ability, my gawd given duty to uphold the defense of life and liberty against any and all aggressors that would put me or my family in dire straits, under grave duress and great peril through no fault of our own.

I shot the ***, I had evah intention of shooting the *** and apparently, successfully succeeded.

At no time did I try not to shoot the *** nor was any unintentional discharge recorded as I fully intended w/evah pull of the trigger to shoot his sorry ***, so help me gawd...

__________________
Caveat venditor.

The absolutely correct answer to this question is to push for legislation barring lawsuits if shooting is justified!!!!!! In this liberal state I think this has a snowballs chance in hell of passing.I will leave things as they are and pray the day never comes where I have to use it, althiough I have come extremely close on 2 occasions...Thank you all and God Bless....Mike

? Not legal advice by any means, but didn't the Supreme Court essentially decide this issue in the Heller decision? After reading the decision, I got the distinct impression that the government (at least the Federal government) cannot require that a person keep a handgun in an inoperable condition; i.e., it can be kept in a ready condition and unlocked. If that's the case, and if S&W now is manufacturing some revolvers without a locking feature, how can it be illegal to remove the lock? Removal may be against state laws, but since Heller, I think that those laws may be invalid.

So far as I know it's not illegal to disable an IL and no state requires an IL on a handgun. Some states, such as CA, require that a separate gun lock be sold with a handgun, but it doesn't have to be part of the gun.

I think there are two basic scenarios with different results regarding liability.

If you deliberately shoot someone in self defense I think the disabled lock is of little consequence. Yes, if you go to trial (crim or civil) the other side will try to use it against you.

If the shooting is accidental I think the disabled lock can be used against you very effectively. And if you sell the gun to someone who sells the gun to someone else - who then accidentally shoots someone else - I think you can expect everyone from the shooting victim to the guy who shot him to go against you in court.

I think a gunsmith who removes an IL runs the risk of being sued by an accidental shooting victim AND the guy who shot him. As in, the same guy who came into his shop and requested the work, now being sued, will do the "he told me it was OK - he's a gunsmith, he's the expert" and turn on him in a second. And even if the "customer" signed some sort of hold harmless & indemnify form that happens to hold up, a contract between two parties is not binding on a 3rd party, the 3rd party being the fellow who got shot.

Personally, I'd keep my lock in place - things happen, I don't want my attorney to have the additional task of explaining away a disabled IL.

I have heard/read not to disable the lock or to carry reloads in a defensive handgun because the lawyers will tear you apart.

Does anyone know of an actual court case where a disabled lock or reloads were a deciding factor resulting in a negitive outcome arising from a justified self defense shooting?

FYI - the LAST person I would take
legal advice from is an LEO.

Where conjectural evidence results in conviction, one may rely on the appeals courts to right the injustice perpetrated by the lower court. Like Harold Fish is doing after being convicted of second degree murder and now serving ten years in Arizona. Comforting thought, huh?

What has 24 arms, 24 legs and no brain?

A good prosecutor can convince them that you disabled the lock because you are a homicidal, crazed gun nut who has been itching for a chance to kill somebody and felt a safety may get in the way of you living out your sick demented fantasy of finally getting to kill someone.

A good defense attorney can convince them that you are prudent and more concerned about the reliability of your defense weapon than the internal storage lock that had no bearing in this case whatesoever.

Speed costs money, how fast you wanna go? Same with attorneys, good ones are expensive.

The longer the process takes, the more it will cost you. Every single thing that needs to be addressed will take time, expert witness's, and testimony. The removal of the lock may or may not come into play. If it does, it may be one more fight you have to deal with.

It seems that many of us don't have enough to worry about, so we invent new concerns. This is a prime example. Your chances of shooting somebody are tiny. The chances of any serious legal difficulties a tiny chance within a tiny chance. The chances of legal difficulties arising from a disabled lock a tiny chance within a tiny chance within a tiny chance. Why not just worry about global warming, asteroid impacts or alien invasions? Much more satisfyingly dramatic. I don't believe there's ever been a case based on the IL or, for that matter, handloads used in self defense.

+1 for pinkymingeo! Most all gun boards have members that invent problems to elicit responses. Of course, these responses vary from "if you hadnt gotten out of bed that morning, this would never have happened - to what the heck, the puke had it coming" Wonder how many members carry their gun with their IL switch turned on and how many carry their gun with the cable lock installed?

__________________
S&W factory revolver armorer