Magazine disconnect gone

[1fly2ty]

There have been manufacturers that offered a pistol with a mag disconnect, for example some of the old browning Hi Powers, however the current on slaught of models with a mag disconnect, are as a result of legislation in Commiefornia in 2006 when they passed a law requieing them and the law was fully immplemented in 2007. Now when a LGS orders a firearm from a wholesaler's, they order whatever is in stock at the wholesaler and if it has a mag safety they need the gun for a customer or stock and thats how these guns are showing up in states that do not require the feature. As for removing the dissconect, there are people that fear everything and those of us that have a pair and don't worry about the removal of a minor feature, any good attorney can argue the removal of a part away, especially if it was produced for a state that is on its way to total diarmament of its citizen's. I want a firearm that saves my life not one that in a fight if I accidentally hit the mag release I have to scramble to get the mag back in, to fire the gun. Just my opinion, and yours may differ, do what makes you comfortable.

 

[Rastoff]

While there might not be a case on file, in the current world of sue happy lawyers who will take your case for free, & count on a win for 40% of the award money, it's better to be prepared. While a criminal case probably wouldn't win, a civil case requires less burden of proof to win. I was a boy scout, & our motto was to be prepared. Sure, I have a 1911 with a "target trigger" for range use, but for self defense I have a bone stock M&P40c. I won't be a test case. We live in a world where "slip & fall" lawyers fill my TV screen with 20 minutes a day of useless advertising. GARY

Gary,
Your logic is sound. It certainly makes sense that a modified gun could be used to bolster a weak case. However, while I've heard this argument, and even made it myself, for years, I've never seen an actual case where it was successfully used. I'm not saying it hasn't, I've just never seen one. So, I'm very curious to read the case dullh is talking about.


I too believe in being prepared, but there are limits. Obviously we'd all be better protected if we drove around in a tank. That's not practical. Do you wear body armor? I bet the people at Boston, Newton and Aurora wish they had been.

So, thinking practically, I'd rather have a gun that I can use effectively than one that is "lawyer proof". If someone, anyone, can post case law to the contrary, I'll stick to being prepared by having the best gun I can.