Magazine Disconnect removed and Liability

[BONECUTR]

Ive heard instructors say you should only carry an on roster firearm and only use the ammo your local police department uses so they can't use anything gun related against you.

That said I can't imagine the people suing you to hire a firearms expert who is going to take a deep dive into how your firearm is configured.
Just don't paint your gun with a racist slurs and you only have to worry about the legality of the shoot.

 

[RickD427]

Not a lawyer here, but one who has followed a lot of litigation during my working years. The civil court system is designed so that only relevant and competent evidence gets introduced at trial. Most civil lawsuits get resolved in the pre-trial stages. Once the court has determined what evidence will, and will not be allowed, the attorneys for both sides can generally figure out how the trial will go, and they settle accordingly.

The diagnostic question to ask yourself is "How did the removed magazine disconnect affect the shooting?" If it had no effect, then plan on the issue not being allowed in the trial. The main tool used is the "motion in limine." If the magazine disconnect had no bearing on the shooting, your attorney files such a motion to prevent the plaintiff's attorney from raising the issue at trial. If the judge agrees, the jury never learns about the magazine disconnect.

The problem here is that the system is not perfect, and different judges have differing views about what may be relevant.

 

[EsotericEpsilon]

GoldensRule -Can you afford the $50 - $100k that a defense attorney

]RustVendor[-This is why CCW insurance exists​

I have CCW insurance

EsotericEpsilon-What does your IA say?​

What do you think an IA is going to say?

Tere_Hanges - simply get stock Glock for your HD gun.​

I have plenty of Glocks 43-26-19 etc. too big for summer. The Ruger LCP Max is the perfect pocket gun for summer.

I just sent a request to my CCW insurer asking them their stance on my post question. Will come back and let you guys know their response.

Some IAs allow modifications, while some do not. That's why I posed the question.
My IA allows modifications, though they strongly recommend against mods that affect trigger pull weight and/or reach reduction.
Other IAs want stock configuration. No flashlight, red dot, aftermarket sights, etc. They want it to stay the same as it came out of the box.

 

[GAAPlebees]

This is why CCW insurance exists

Until they find ways to weasel out of it.

 

[-D.M.-]

Too many variables to make any kind of blanket statement(s). It will vary from city to city, county to county; hell, even person to person when it come to the prosecutor/attorney.

You can't even go to your local PD/sheriff and ask. Because what happens if/when you cross some imaginary line and now there's a whole new group of people who may or may not have agendas or biases that are now in play?

Modify your pistol/rifle how you want and train with it regularly. Be prepared to have to defend every single action taken before, during, and after a justified shoot. Mentally drill your answers (mostly the "I'll give my statement after speaking to my lawyer" part) so that you won't be tripped up by some looking to make his bones on your misfortune.

My 2¢.

 

[Hit Factor]

Some IAs allow modifications, while some do not. That's why I posed the question.
My IA allows modifications, though they strongly recommend against mods that affect trigger pull weight and/or reach reduction.
Other IAs want stock configuration. No flashlight, red dot, aftermarket sights, etc. They want it to stay the same as it came out of the box.

IAs that prohibit or discourage modifications are doing so in an attempt to prevent negligent or otherwise unintentional discharges. That’s it. It has nothing to do with legality.

 

[M_N04H]

IAs that prohibit or discourage modifications are doing so in an attempt to prevent negligent or otherwise unintentional discharges. That’s it. It has nothing to do with legality.

If that was the case, these IAs wouldn't consider a red dot to be a modification, on a gun that's optic ready AND on roster.

 

[Dvrjon]

Can you afford the $50 - $100k that a defense attorney will likely cost just to defend a firearms violation if the shooting is otherwise deemed righteous by a D.A. but the D.A. turns out to to be an and prosecutes you on the lesser charges? That might be a better starting point.

Good. Let's start there. The shooting is deemed righteous...that means it's a legal shoot. Now, what "lesser charges" can the DA file? Penal Code citations are always welcome.

 

[Dvrjon]

My opinion.

The mag disconnect was established in legislation to prevent accidental discharges similar to the one which killed a young man when he and friends were fiddling with his dad's gun and didnt realize dropping the mag doesn't totally unload the semi-auto weapon. So, it's a saftey device to protect against accidental or negligent discharges. In a self-defense shooting, you will defend based on the assertion that you meant to shoot...there was no accident or negligence involved. That makes the mag release irrelevant to the facts of the shoooting.

The trigger on your gun should also fall into the same category if it has a pull weight which is equal to the factory weight or a weight considered by experts to be reasonable for a duty gun. If you shoot someone using a gun with a 2# trigger your assertion that you meant to shoot may be called into question and provide a basis for challenging your defense of self-defense.

 

[Dvrjon]

IAs that prohibit or discourage modifications are doing so in an attempt to prevent negligent or otherwise unintentional discharges. That’s it. It has nothing to do with legality.

That may be true. However, another more important reason also drives the policy. Although IAs are indemnified by both state law and the provisions of the CCW application, some agencies feel the need to further limit their exposure and do so by limiting approved firearms to what the factory provides. They are less concerned about preventing accidents and more concerned about their lawyers' considerations.

 

[Dvrjon]

Ive heard instructors say you should only carry an on roster firearm and only use the ammo your local police department uses so they can't use anything gun related against you.

That said I can't imagine the people suing you to hire a firearms expert who is going to take a deep dive into how your firearm is configured.
Just don't paint your gun with a racist slurs and you only have to worry about the legality of the shoot.

What does one do if, on January 1 of any year, their rostered CCW gun falls off the roster? One day you're good and the next day you're bad? The roster only pertains fo guns FFLs can sell. It's irrelevant to a CCW shootiing.

If you use the same ammunition as your local cops, will the DA think you're a wanna-be cop and suspect you might have shot imprudently?

Here's an example of a LEO who inscribed a vulgarity on the dust cover of his AR. When he shot and killed a suspect, the judge wouldn't let the information in as it might prejudice the jury. What you inscribe on your gun is probably not going to get you convicted. (Of course, if it's, "Kill all the XX People", and you then kill a bunch of XX People, YMMV).

As an aside, we are talking about criminal liability for the shooting. After you are not charged, the family/friends of the individual can find a tort attorney to file a wrongful death case on you in civil court (actually, the attorney will find them). After all, this is California,

 

[RickD427]

That may be true. However, another more important reason also drives the policy. Although IAs are indemnified by both state law and the provisions of the CCW application, some agencies feel the need to further limit their exposure and do so by limiting approved firearms to what the factory provides. They are less concerned about preventing accidents and more concerned about their lawyers' considerations.

Please note that the law does not fully indemnify Issuing Agencies from liability. They are only protected from paying judgments. They're still on the hook for all of the litigation costs incurred up to the point of the lawsuit being dismissed. Those costs can be quite significant.

 

[Dvrjon]

Please note that the law does not fully indemnify Issuing Agencies from liability. They are only protected from paying judgments. They're still on the hook for all of the litigation costs incurred up to the point of the lawsuit being dismissed. Those costs can be quite significant.

Hi, Rick!

I agree with you on the general indemnification aspects of the Government Code. But in the particular instance of the CCW, every applicant signs off on Section 7 of the Standard Initial and Renewal Application which provides rather specific assurances for the licensing authorities and their employees.

Section 7 - Agreement to Restrictions and to Hold Harmless

I accept and assume all responsibility and liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any property which may result through an act or omission of either the licensee or the licensing authority. In the event any claim, suit or action is brought against the licensing authority, its chief officer or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission, the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the licensing authority, its chief officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.

That seems to provide a substantial shield for the IA.

 

[RickD427]

Hi, Rick!

I agree with you on the general indemnification aspects of the Government Code. But in the particular instance of the CCW, every applicant signs off on Section 7 of the Standard Initial and Renewal Application which provides rather specific assurances for the licensing authorities and their employees.

That seems to provide a substantial shield for the IA.

Dvrjon,

Thanks for posting the excerpt from Section 7 of the Renewal Application. I've never held a California CCW and was not previously familiar with that provision.

But I still don't see that as changing much, at least not in the real world. When I was working, we would budget $40K just to start the defense of a lawsuit, and by trial time, the expenses would be several times that amount. So let's say that the person injured in a shooting by a CCW permittee sue the Issuing Agency and the suit goes to trial. A reasonable "SWAG" at the trial legal expenses would be about $150K. The judges orders the permittee to pay the $150K and the permittee writes the check. What do think is gonna happen when that "check" hits the bank. The key point being that there is a huge difference between getting an award from a private person and getting the money from that person.

 

[-D.M.-]

My opinion.

The mag disconnect was established in legislation to prevent accidental discharges similar to the one which killed a young man when he and friends were fiddling with his dad's gun and didnt realize dropping the mag doesn't totally unload the semi-auto weapon. So, it's a saftey device to protect against accidental or negligent discharges. In a self-defense shooting, you will defend based on the assertion that you meant to shoot...there was no accident or negligence involved. That makes the mag release irrelevant to the facts of the shoooting.

The trigger on your gun should also fall into the same category if it has a pull weight which is equal to the factory weight or a weight considered by experts to be reasonable for a duty gun. If you shoot someone using a gun with a 2# trigger your assertion that you meant to shoot may be called into question and provide a basis for challenging your defense of self-defense.

I disagree with the bolded text. It's a hedge against being sued by the surviving parties of a moron who was ignorant, careless and stupid. It's like the labels on a hairdryer or toaster telling you not to use them in the tub.

Or, more pointedly, it's like when we were all 6 years old, and one dip would misbehave and the entire class got punished. This F-ing state treats us all like mongoloid schoolchildren.

 

[H. Bowman]

Anyone can sue for anything, but it certainly isn't something I'd be worried about. A lawful shooting is a lawful shooting.

 

[Dvrjon]

Dvrjon,

Thanks for posting the excerpt from Section 7 of the Renewal Application. I've never held a California CCW and was not previously familiar with that provision.

But I still don't see that as changing much, at least not in the real world. When I was working, we would budget $40K just to start the defense of a lawsuit, and by trial time, the expenses would be several times that amount. So let's say that the person injured in a shooting by a CCW permittee sue the Issuing Agency and the suit goes to trial. A reasonable "SWAG" at the trial legal expenses would be about $150K. The judges orders the permittee to pay the $150K and the permittee writes the check. What do think is gonna happen when that "check" hits the bank. The key point being that there is a huge difference between getting an award from a private person and getting the money from that person.

All good points, Rick. However, your valuation of costs seems to deal with the need for the agency to defend itself. (My guess would be something like an officer-involved shooting or beat-down by the Vikings having a party in the main jail.) Those are suits brought against the Agency for the actions of Agency members allegedly outside of the normal expected powers and behaviors.

In this situation, the Agency would presumably be named in the suit for executing their lawful duties under a shall issue mandate to license CCW. The challenge would be that the Agency licensed the CCW holder and authorized him/her to carry a weapon (or modified weapon) thus giving him/her the means by which to injure or kill someone. (Just writing that idiocy reminds me that I’m in California).

Because of the application’s specific indemnifications as a requirement of licensure, in the case of a CCW holder who shoots someone, I’d say it doesn’t matter to the IA. The very first motion I would expect from Agency counsel would be a motion to dismiss Agency from litigation due to the CCW holder’s stipulated indemnification. The applicant’s signed agreement would be Exhibit 1 and would be a nominal cost for the Agency because they will not be in trial. What happens to the CCW holder when they write a settlement check is irrelevant…the stipulated indemnification ensures the trial costs and payments aren’t the Agency’s problem. That’s why it’s in the application.

 

[Dvrjon]

I disagree with the bolded text. It's a hedge against being sued by the surviving parties of a moron who was ignorant, careless and stupid. It's like the labels on a hairdryer or toaster telling you not to use them in the tub.

Or, more pointedly, it's like when we were all 6 years old, and one dip would misbehave and the entire class got punished. This F-ing state treats us all like mongoloid schoolchildren.

Disagree all you want. It was “sold” as a safety feature after the son of a legislator was killed by an “unloaded” gun.

 

[westsidearms]

Disagree all you want. It was “sold” as a safety feature after the son of a legislator was killed by an “unloaded” gun.

However, its intent was to limit the number of firearms we could DROS.

I am still waiting for someone to post even one reference to a case being determined by what kind of gun, modifications, or type of ammo you had. I mean there was the cop that blasted the dude on his hands and knees with his AR15 and his dust cover said, "Your F$%KED!", but I don't think that was the end all be all of that case and he was a cop so that is completely different than a CCW shooting.

 

[GoldensRule]

This is the reply I got from the company I use:

Garrett Hardesty (CCWSafe) Aug 7, 2025, 10:40 CDT Hello Jerry, Thank you for contacting CCW Safe! I am not an attorney so I cannot give you any legal advice. California does have some very interesting restrictions when it comes to firearms, and certain "safety features". We cover any self-defense incident with any weapon used. As long as there is admissible evidence you acted and self-defense we will cover you all the way through, even with charges all the way up to murder 1. We do not recommend members to break the law, but we would not deny coverage for self-defense incident if you were using an illegal firearm or carrying in a gun free zone. If there were charges, they were filed separately to the self-defense incident related to the weapons violations we would not provide assistance for those. We would just provide assistance for the self-defense charges. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Have a great day. Stay safe! E: support@ccwsafe.com P: 855-639-2297

It was a great idea to contact your "insurer". As you posted above, they will defend you for charges relating to the SD shooting, but not for any weapons violations charges.

If there were charges, they were filed separately to the self-defense incident related to the weapons violations we would not provide assistance for those. We would just provide assistance for the self-defense charges.

So, if you are involved in a shooting and you run into an asshat D.A. who decides to bring weapons charges, you are on your own financially for your defense, fines, etc. Personally, I would go out of my way to ensure that my CCW weapon is 100% compliant with all laws, just in case. This kind of can get real expensive, real fast.

Now, if you were to be the guy who saves the lives of a kindergarten full of children or a church full of congregants you'd probably not be prosecuted on weapons charges and if you were, there would be a crowd of attorneys ready to defend you pro bono, for the publicity. Short of that, you might be looking at a second mortgage.