Mag Disconnect - do you just accept it?

[adrkwan]

It’s a neurotic obsession and super unrealistic. Why would you worry about it at all? You’re far more likely to die in a car crash than to have a 1 in a billion criminal charge based on your MD.

By this logic don’t leave your house or go outside because you might die.

Yeah that is fair. I'm thinking of it from an insurance perspective since my policy says I have to comply with all applicable laws including federal, state, local laws, rules and regulations applicable for my CCW. Because its so vague, I read it to include whatever requirements the issuing agency imposes.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

Building a good collection and leaving CA for retirement is the goal, although my roster guns will be sorta worthless in a free state. I don’t buy guns that I don’t want to keep, so resale value is secondary..

I’m hopeful that by 2028, CA will have been hogtied by the SCOTUS on 2A issues and we won’t have to plan for more idiotic laws, but I’m absolutely not counting on that. Hope is not a plan.

Unless the mag disconnect or LCI gives me an idea that it’ll cause reliability issues, I’ll leave them as is, I’m not removing them proactively. If they act up in any way though, they’ll just disappear..

Over the past 10 years I’ve been looking at various other places in case I want to leave CA. I could leave in 4 years. Not sure if I will stay or leave. I love the community I am part of and very active in it. Also keeping a close eye on how CA is trying to find more middle class taxes.

 

[Gawernator]

To me, it comes down to how conservative do you want to be. It’s your life. I spend a lot of time in the day job doing risk management. So, to me it is a risk. What we are really debating is the probability and impact if the DA wants to use this as part of grand jury or prosecution. True, Mas didn’t mention mag disconnect. It’s a matter of where do you draw the line and stand on it. We are on opposite sides on this and that is fine. I used to work in a lab using high energy chemicals and I have had a small explosion. I know some who lost an arm from a lab accident as well as another individual who is deaf in one ear from expolosion.; Also knew some who was so badly burned in a lab accident it was really touch and go whether they would live. Friend of mine had a professor die from dimethyl mercury poisoning at Dartmouth. My experience is not at all unusual for a chemist in terms of knowing people who have had things happen to them. I earned the nickname of Captain Caution in grad school and no doubt that has spilled into other areas of my life.

I understand being cautious and risk management but there is a limit. There is an acceptable amount of risk. Is the Navy not going to sea because the ship could sink?

 

[Gawernator]

Yeah that is fair. I'm thinking of it from an insurance perspective since my policy says I have to comply with all applicable laws including federal, state, local laws, rules and regulations applicable for my CCW. Because its so vague, I read it to include whatever requirements the issuing agency imposes.

Well if your CCW license says on it that you can't remove a MD then I guess you have to follow that. Remember that the restriction must be printed on the card to be legally enforceable.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I understand being cautious and risk management but there is a limit. There is an acceptable amount of risk. Is the Navy not going to sea because the ship could sink?

I do agree there is a limit. In my case, I came down on the side of I won’t remove safety features on a pistol that I carry or use as a house gun. Others don’t. I’m cool with that. Just not for me. For what it’s worth, while digging, there was along thread from 2006 on the Ruger forum having the same discussion. Kind of made me chuckle; nothing a new issue at all. I did spend quite a bit of time looking around the internet and even did some AI searches, came up empty on this being a real world issue.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

Yeah that is fair. I'm thinking of it from an insurance perspective since my policy says I have to comply with all applicable laws including federal, state, local laws, rules and regulations applicable for my CCW. Because it’s so vague, I read it to include whatever requirements the issuing agency imposes.

This is an interesting point I hadn’t even considered. Thanks.

Semi related. I do woodworking at a high level in my garage. It would probably take $30K to replace all the tools I use and another $50K in garage upgrades. It didn’t happen overnight and took the better part of a decade to get my woodworking hobby to this level. My standard insurance had a cap that was much lower than the overall policy on firearms, so I wanted to check if there might be any restrictions on the woodworking hobby. So I called my insurance company and asked my rep. Fortunately, there is no insurance cap beyond the policy limits itself. However, she pointed out that if I were selling any thing derived from woodworking, I would need a different policy to cover the tools because then it would be a home business. I asked her how much and without getting into the details she guesstimated a a couple thousand for $100,000 coverage. She also pointed out that the insurance company would ask for my tax filings and would check places such as Facebook marketplace if I ever needed to make a claim to see if I was selling stuff. If I was and didn’t have this additional coverage, they wouldn’t cover it. That was a good piece of information to know. As such, I don’t sell anything because it would be a way for them to invalidate a claim. I do give things away to friends and family around Christmas time, but that isn’t selling. I hadn’t thought to apply the same general thought to firearms.

 

[Gawernator]

I searched. It’s case number NF309608A in San Mateo County Court. Pasted a link that gives high level activities. I did look at the charge penal code to confirm it was Frank’s case.

Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo

odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org

California Penal Code Section 12280

Read California Penal Code - California Penal Code Section 12280. Need legal help? Connect with top-rated California defense attorneys for a free consultation on LawLink.

lawlink.com

Too bad it's way too old to have docs online, the case didn't go anywhere though

Frank Gary Tabor was charged in San Mateo County with six felony counts of manufacturing, distributing, or transferring assault weapons under former Penal Code § 12280(a)(1). The alleged conduct occurred on August 7, 2000, and the criminal complaint was filed on February 2, 2001.

He appeared with attorney Geoff Carr on February 26, 2001, waived formal arraignment and advisement of rights, and pleaded not guilty to all six counts. The defense also waived the statutory time limits for the preliminary hearing.

The case never reached a preliminary hearing or trial. It was continued several times while the parties apparently discussed disposition. On May 9, 2001, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the entire case, and all six felony charges were dismissed. The docket does not state why the prosecution dismissed it.

The unusual part happened three years later. In 2004, Tabor’s attorney returned to court and filed a petition to compel compliance with a prior court order, along with a contempt request. Later filings describe the dispute more specifically as concerning “payment of funds for released firearms” connected with the original search warrant. The defense also sought attorney’s fees, accusing the opposing side of frivolous and vexatious litigation.

That language strongly suggests firearms had been seized during the investigation, the court subsequently ordered them released or otherwise resolved their disposition, and a government agency either failed to return them or owed Tabor money connected with them. The exact order, the firearms involved, and the amount of money are not contained in this docket.

The California Attorney General’s Office became involved in the post-dismissal litigation. After several continuances, the petition was withdrawn on October 19, 2004, and the Attorney General’s request for fees was denied.

So the practical result was:

Tabor was not convicted. All six assault-weapon felonies were dismissed at the prosecution’s request. He then spent part of 2004 fighting over compliance with an order involving firearms seized in the case, but ultimately withdrew that petition. The docket does not reveal whether he got the guns back, received compensation, or reached some private agreement.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

Too bad it's way too old to have docs online, the case didn't go anywhere though

Frank Gary Tabor was charged in San Mateo County with six felony counts of manufacturing, distributing, or transferring assault weapons under former Penal Code § 12280(a)(1). The alleged conduct occurred on August 7, 2000, and the criminal complaint was filed on February 2, 2001.

He appeared with attorney Geoff Carr on February 26, 2001, waived formal arraignment and advisement of rights, and pleaded not guilty to all six counts. The defense also waived the statutory time limits for the preliminary hearing.

The case never reached a preliminary hearing or trial. It was continued several times while the parties apparently discussed disposition. On May 9, 2001, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the entire case, and all six felony charges were dismissed. The docket does not state why the prosecution dismissed it.

The unusual part happened three years later. In 2004, Tabor’s attorney returned to court and filed a petition to compel compliance with a prior court order, along with a contempt request. Later filings describe the dispute more specifically as concerning “payment of funds for released firearms” connected with the original search warrant. The defense also sought attorney’s fees, accusing the opposing side of frivolous and vexatious litigation.

That language strongly suggests firearms had been seized during the investigation, the court subsequently ordered them released or otherwise resolved their disposition, and a government agency either failed to return them or owed Tabor money connected with them. The exact order, the firearms involved, and the amount of money are not contained in this docket.

The California Attorney General’s Office became involved in the post-dismissal litigation. After several continuances, the petition was withdrawn on October 19, 2004, and the Attorney General’s request for fees was denied.

So the practical result was:

Tabor was not convicted. All six assault-weapon felonies were dismissed at the prosecution’s request. He then spent part of 2004 fighting over compliance with an order involving firearms seized in the case, but ultimately withdrew that petition. The docket does not reveal whether he got the guns back, received compensation, or reached some private agreement.

The other way you would know Frank Tabor is via MythBusters. Frank provided them with the weapons on set. I don’t know his official title with the show but I think he was in the credits. In the first (I think) season, there is a gun myth with someone shooting the rope off of a hanging man. The person doing the shooting was Frank. Great guy. Used to spend a lot of time in that shop. Any yes, he had MythBusters stories. He didn’t brag about it and there was no obvious connection shown in the store. In fact, you could even buy at least some of the guns used in the episode if you wanted. All you had to do was ask Frank.

 

[Darqhelmet]

What gun, most are easily and safely removed.

MKIV 22/45 it lives out of state with my nfa stuff.

 

[bluesky762]

I avoid guns that have MD.

 

[RustVendor]

I avoid guns that have MD.

that's pointless and expensive

 

[bluesky762]

that's pointless and expensive

Pointless? The point is to avoid the MD... literally. Expensive, yes, because off-roster or old models on-roster. That's california.

 

[RustVendor]

Pointless? The point is to avoid the MD... literally. Expensive, yes, because off-roster or old models on-roster. That's california.

Pointless because all of them are easily removed. Even the counties who don't "allow" it on your CCW permit don't have a system to check if you did or not.

 

[bluesky762]

Pointless because all of them are easily removed. Even the counties who don't "allow" it on your CCW permit don't have a system to check if you did or not.

ah, ok i agree with you on this.

 

[BigBadBogie]

Remove, or don't buy. No F'n way I'm gonna have something that forces me to insert a magazine to disassemble(release the sear). This is an ND waiting to happen.

 

[Diabolus]

Mag disconnects were enacted by people who don't shoot, don't understand how firearms operate and run on the premise that adding more "safety" features are better, when in fact it makes the firearm more dangerous.

I only purchase firearms that I am able to remove the mag disconnect on, or buy a safer version without the mag disconnect from PPT.

 

[Skilly]

Mag disconnects were enacted by people who don't shoot, don't understand how firearms operate and run on the premise that adding more "safety" features are better, when in fact it makes the firearm more dangerous.

I only purchase firearms that I am able to remove the mag disconnect on, or buy a safer version without the mag disconnect from PPT.

I havent met an MD that can't be undone...what platform makes them unremovable?

 

[Diabolus]

I havent met an MD that can't be undone...what platform makes them unremovable?

You're probably correct, in my case I have a VP9A1K and F that require a replacement part to disable the "feature" and it's been out of stock everywhere I have checked. It's preventing me from taking it out right now, but I have a couple stock indicators for when it's available. I think Grayguns has it available, but they don't sell them direct, only if sending it in to have work done like a new trigger.

 

[Gawernator]

You're probably correct, in my case I have a VP9A1K and F that require a replacement part to disable the "feature" and it's been out of stock everywhere I have checked. It's preventing me from taking it out right now, but I have a couple stock indicators for when it's available. I think Grayguns has it available, but they don't sell them direct, only if sending it in to have work done like a new trigger.

Oh snap I need that

 

[Diabolus]

Oh snap I need that

LOL disregard my DM, I thought of you as I typed that out and hoped you sourced one.