For those that love California mag discos

[RustVendor]

I’ve had my CCW from Solano for 8 years. They give you a print out of limits with your renewal. The old cards had them printed on the back. Not everything is on the internet.

No internal parts changed except OEM parts. No carrying in establishments whose primary purpose is to serve alcohol. No carrying unless your BA is zero. No removal of safety features. If you get into trouble with the law for any reason, you need to notify the IA immediately. It’s a laundry list of things that if violated forfeit your CCW immediately. I did talk to the old sheriff about changing the P365 to a Wilson Combat XL grip model , new XL slide and barrel. He didn’t care.

I put a CZ85 trigger on my P-01 since the CGW is not allowed. Doesn’t pinch my finger Grips and sights changes are fine , but internal parts swaps have to be OEM. It was 100% stock for the first 10k rounds.

I put a Glock OEM minus disconnector on my G19 , G34 extended slide release and mag release. That’s it. Just shoot them and compete with everything you carry.

that's highly irregular, the vast majority of the state does't have those rules even places like LA or like Berkley, it's just you can Contra Costa

 

[mrbieler]

FWIW.

From the LAPD web page FAQ, https://lapdonlinestrgeacc.blob.cor...doc-for-homepage-revised-November-14-2025.pdf:
Can I make modifications to my firearms?Some sight and light attachments are allowed but no illegal modifications to firearms are permitted. Check with current California Firearm laws to verify the legal status of your firearm.

From LASD, https://lasd.org/ccw/#carry-restrictions:
Customization to firearms are permitted as long as it does not violate any State or Federal regulation.

 

[Joker67]

This spring will be my 4th renewal and the first under the new Sheriff. I’ll be dealing with the new liberal spite bull like LiveScan and maybe a psych evaluation. It will be interesting to see what they say about limitations . The old Sheriff gave us an ok in writing to carry standard cap mags after Freedom Week. I did until last year when the progressives got spiteful.

I keep my CCW’s nearly stock. In addition to the IA, I’m not giving any progressive prosecutors a reason to say I made something more deadly or unsafe in case of a defense shooting.

That being said , I would never buy a gun with CA features for CCW. If I buy another pistol, it will be a Shadow 2 for USPSA. Off roster P10C for CCW. No interest in anything on the roster with CA features. The extra cost is nothing compared to what I’ll pay reloading thousands of rounds to shoot through them. ( its cost $1650 at .15 cents a round to shoot through the P-01, $900 at .15 through the P365 and $300 through the G19, more than $3,000 in reloads through my SP-01).

 

[treelogger]

When you do file the main target should be the CA DOJ. Sig can be named but they are not the reason this mechanism is in the gun. The state is. A mandated feature that fails this way is a policy problem and it will not get fixed through a warranty claim.

For guns like the P365, that is probably a wise choice. The mag disconnect is an add-on that isn't part of the original design. Hence the failure, although I have seen other videos where the trigger bar return springs fail.

You're both making it sound like the problem is that SIG did a bad job adding the MagDisco mechanism to the gun. You might be right, or you might be wrong, and I have no opinion on that for the P365.

I would just like to add a little history lesson: The greatest SIG pistol every designed and built, the SIG P210 (Swiss made, and the Swiss military issue pistol for decades), designed in the late 1940s, had a mag disconnect from day 1. It is easy to remove, but I don't bother on mine. Because it has a great trigger, with or without mag disconnect.

Mindlessly foaming at the mouth "mag disconnects are evil, and are all the result of the evil CA DoJ" is an invalid generalization. They are much older, quite common in service pistols, and can be implemented well. Whether Ron Cohen's company (which shares the name with the SIG that used to build Swiss pistols in Neuheusen) is capable of building good pistols is a question for another day and another thread.

 

[RustVendor]

This spring will be my 4th renewal and the first under the new Sheriff. I’ll be dealing with the new liberal spite bull like LiveScan and maybe a psych evaluation. It will be interesting to see what they say about limitations . The old Sheriff gave us an ok in writing to carry standard cap mags after Freedom Week. I did until last year when the progressives got spiteful.

I keep my CCW’s nearly stock. In addition to the IA, I’m not giving any progressive prosecutors a reason to say I made something more deadly or unsafe in case of a defense shooting.

That being said , I would never buy a gun with CA features for CCW. If I buy another pistol, it will be a Shadow 2 for USPSA. Off roster P10C for CCW. No interest in anything on the roster with CA features. The extra cost is nothing compared to what I’ll pay reloading thousands of rounds to shoot through them. ( its cost $1650 at .15 cents a round to shoot through the P-01, $900 at .15 through the P365 and $300 through the G19, more than $3,000 in reloads through my SP-01).

Well like I said I carry an m&p that was bought on roster for 500 dollars and has zero features because I got an OEM slide. Sacramento county has no restrictions on any of that and it's identical to an off roster version. Even if there are permit terms that would restrict it it's not really enforceable and they don't check in the first place. Would they even know if I just said I bought it off roster? It's just a non issue

 

[cali_jazz]

I think we're conflating three separate issues here: California firearms law, CCW issuing-agency policies, and potential liability following a defensive shooting.

First, California's handgun roster requirements generally apply to the manufacture and commercial sale of handguns, not to an owner's obligation to retain every factory safety feature indefinitely. I'm not aware of any California statute that makes it inherently illegal for a lawful owner to remove a magazine disconnect, loaded chamber indicator, or manual safety from an otherwise legal handgun. (See Penal Code 31910 and 32000)

Second, CCW restrictions are a separate matter. An issuing agency can impose conditions on modifications, so the relevant question is what that particular agency's written policy says. LAPD acknowledges that some modifications are permitted, and LASD expressly allows customization provided it doesn't violate state or federal law.

Third, regarding criminal prosecution or civil liability following a legitimate self-defense incident, there's an important distinction between a modification being mentioned in a case and that modification actually establishing criminal or civil liability. A prosecutor or opposing attorney could potentially raise the issue, but that doesn't mean removing a magazine disconnect automatically makes an otherwise justified defensive shooting unlawful.

I'd also question the logic of treating removal of a magazine disconnect as inherently suspect when California law permits possession and lawful carry of off-roster or grandfathered handguns that never had magazine disconnects in the first place. If the absence of a magazine disconnect doesn't make those firearms inherently unsafe or unlawful, why should removing that same feature from an otherwise lawful handgun automatically create criminal or civil liability following an otherwise justified defensive shooting?

I'm not suggesting a modification could never be relevant to a particular case. (IE an injury to a person who believed the gun was unloaded due to no magazine) But there should be some demonstrable connection between the modification and the circumstances of the shooting, rather than simply assuming that removing a factory safety feature establishes wrongdoing.

If someone knows of a California statute, published CCW restriction, or actual case in which removal of a magazine disconnect was determinate, I'd be interested in seeing it.

I'm not arguing that every modification is advisable or risk-free. I'm arguing that we should distinguish documented legal restrictions and demonstrated risks from speculation.

 

[Gawernator]

FWIW.

From the LAPD web page FAQ, https://lapdonlinestrgeacc.blob.cor...doc-for-homepage-revised-November-14-2025.pdf:
Can I make modifications to my firearms?Some sight and light attachments are allowed but no illegal modifications to firearms are permitted. Check with current California Firearm laws to verify the legal status of your firearm.

From LASD, https://lasd.org/ccw/#carry-restrictions:
Customization to firearms are permitted as long as it does not violate any State or Federal regulation.

yeah basically as long as no thread barrel or switch you're legal.

 

[Gawernator]

This spring will be my 4th renewal and the first under the new Sheriff. I’ll be dealing with the new liberal spite bull like LiveScan and maybe a psych evaluation. It will be interesting to see what they say about limitations . The old Sheriff gave us an ok in writing to carry standard cap mags after Freedom Week. I did until last year when the progressives got spiteful.

I keep my CCW’s nearly stock. In addition to the IA, I’m not giving any progressive prosecutors a reason to say I made something more deadly or unsafe in case of a defense shooting.

That being said , I would never buy a gun with CA features for CCW. If I buy another pistol, it will be a Shadow 2 for USPSA. Off roster P10C for CCW. No interest in anything on the roster with CA features. The extra cost is nothing compared to what I’ll pay reloading thousands of rounds to shoot through them. ( its cost $1650 at .15 cents a round to shoot through the P-01, $900 at .15 through the P365 and $300 through the G19, more than $3,000 in reloads through my SP-01).

The FUD levels are reaching peak

Show me one Walther PDP defensive shooting where the gun failed because of a LCI etc (or any modern gun if you want)

Show me even ONE conviction in a lawful shoot where the defendant was found guilty because they removed a MD or LCI. Or you can just admit you're making up BS and causing unnecessary false panic.

You didn't even admit you lied about the video in the OP and your misinformation title. Was it on purpose or just ignorance? The issue was clearly the trigger spring.

 

[SavageHand]

You're both making it sound like the problem is that SIG did a bad job adding the MagDisco mechanism to the gun. You might be right, or you might be wrong, and I have no opinion on that for the P365.

I would just like to add a little history lesson: The greatest SIG pistol every designed and built, the SIG P210 (Swiss made, and the Swiss military issue pistol for decades), designed in the late 1940s, had a mag disconnect from day 1. It is easy to remove, but I don't bother on mine. Because it has a great trigger, with or without mag disconnect.

Mindlessly foaming at the mouth "mag disconnects are evil, and are all the result of the evil CA DoJ" is an invalid generalization. They are much older, quite common in service pistols, and can be implemented well. Whether Ron Cohen's company (which shares the name with the SIG that used to build Swiss pistols in Neuheusen) is capable of building good pistols is a question for another day and another thread.

I don't think there is anything "wrong" with it. I was simply stating that if he felt that way and wanted reliability, then he should look at guns with a long history of having mag disconnects in them. I also stated it might be the spring. It seems to be a failure point for the P365 in some cases. I don't have anything against the Sig design, and plan to buy one at some point.