Magazine Safety Removal Legality on CCW Pistols

[treelogger]

I know that folks tend to be very fearful of being charged after a defensive shooting. I have not seen that occur in real life.

I wasn't actually talking about a defensive shooting at all. Much simpler scenario: Someone is carrying, with a valid CCW permit. The gun they are carrying has been modified to not have a mag safety, in contravention of the IA's policies. For whatever reason, the gun being carried has to be checked over by LE. For example, the person carrying has a stroke while driving, causes a minor accident, has to be transported by ambulance, and the gun is taken for safe keeping by officers on the scene, since medics don't like to transport guns in an ambulance (I made all of that up). As the gun is put into storage at the LE agency, the department armorer notices the missing mag safety, writes that in the report. The report comes into the hands of the "shift supervisor" or sergeant (whoever handles these reports), who says: "Dang, that guy removed the mag safety, that's not right", and gives the report to the DA. Who promptly charges the person with illegal carry.

Is this likely to happen? Absolutely not, it requires a bizarre chain of events. But could it happen? Yes. And would the person get charged and convicted? I think so.

The OP asked "is it legal to remove the mag safety on the CCW weapon". And I think that bizarre and unlikely scenario has to be part of the answer: In and of itself, it is not illegal to modify the gun. But you might find yourself without a valid CCW permit at that moment, leading to more interesting trouble.

Please feel free to disagree; I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

 

[RickD427]

I wasn't actually talking about a defensive shooting at all. Much simpler scenario: Someone is carrying, with a valid CCW permit. The gun they are carrying has been modified to not have a mag safety, in contravention of the IA's policies. For whatever reason, the gun being carried has to be checked over by LE. For example, the person carrying has a stroke while driving, causes a minor accident, has to be transported by ambulance, and the gun is taken for safe keeping by officers on the scene, since medics don't like to transport guns in an ambulance (I made all of that up). As the gun is put into storage at the LE agency, the department armorer notices the missing mag safety, writes that in the report. The report comes into the hands of the "shift supervisor" or sergeant (whoever handles these reports), who says: "Dang, that guy removed the mag safety, that's not right", and gives the report to the DA. Who promptly charges the person with illegal carry.

Is this likely to happen? Absolutely not, it requires a bizarre chain of events. But could it happen? Yes. And would the person get charged and convicted? I think so.

The OP asked "is it legal to remove the mag safety on the CCW weapon". And I think that bizarre and unlikely scenario has to be part of the answer: In and of itself, it is not illegal to modify the gun. But you might find yourself without a valid CCW permit at that moment, leading to more interesting trouble.

Please feel free to disagree; I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

There's a bit of uncharted legal territory in what you have posted. And that is the belief that if permit condition is violated, that the permit somehow "Vaporizes" and then the holder is left in the position of carrying without a permit.

That runs contrary to the legal principle that a person is entitled to notice of a change in their permit conditions. An Issuing Agency is on pretty solid ground if they revoke a permit because a permit condition has been violated, but they have to inform you of the revocation.

I haven't seen any case law that supports the "Vaporization" theory that a permit immediately becomes invalid upon violation of a term.

I am aware of one trial case, and I seem to recall it involving a Deputy District Attorney who did some really stupid stuff while carrying under a permit. He entered into a plea-bargain where he pled guilty to CCW under the "Vaporization" theory. But that doesn't create any case law, and really does not support the theory because the defendant willingly pled to it.

 

[five.five-six]

The most I would change on a firearm my life could potentially depend on would be sights and grips and I don’t even change those. IME, most anything you modify becomes less reliable.

 

[westsidearms]

Re-dros it as semi

To be clear, re-buy your own handgun in a PPT. You cannot just to go a dealer and say, "DROS this for me." You could try to pawn it and you will have to re-DROS it back to yourself, but that is different. If you go into a gun shop with someone else and simply tell the dealer, "I am buying this gun from this guy," 10 days and $47.19 later it will be in your name as a semi-automatic.

 

[NorCalBusa]

There's a bit of uncharted legal territory in what you have posted. And that is the belief that if permit condition is violated, that the permit somehow "Vaporizes" and then the holder is left in the position of carrying without a permit.

That runs contrary to the legal principle that a person is entitled to notice of a change in their permit conditions. An Issuing Agency is on pretty solid ground if they revoke a permit because a permit condition has been violated, but they have to inform you of the revocation.

I haven't seen any case law that supports the "Vaporization" theory that a permit immediately becomes invalid upon violation of a term.

I am aware of one trial case, and I seem to recall it involving a Deputy District Attorney who did some really stupid stuff while carrying under a permit. He entered into a plea-bargain where he pled guilty to CCW under the "Vaporization" theory. But that doesn't create any case law, and really does not support the theory because the defendant willingly pled to it.

Good seeing you post here Rick- welcome!

 

[Dvrjon]

There's a bit of uncharted legal territory in what you have posted. And that is the belief that if permit condition is violated, that the permit somehow "Vaporizes" and then the holder is left in the position of carrying without a permit.

That runs contrary to the legal principle that a person is entitled to notice of a change in their permit conditions. An Issuing Agency is on pretty solid ground if they revoke a permit because a permit condition has been violated, but they have to inform you of the revocation.

I haven't seen any case law that supports the "Vaporization" theory that a permit immediately becomes invalid upon violation of a term.

I am aware of one trial case, and I seem to recall it involving a Deputy District Attorney who did some really stupid stuff while carrying under a permit. He entered into a plea-bargain where he pled guilty to CCW under the "Vaporization" theory. But that doesn't create any case law, and really does not support the theory because the defendant willingly pled to it.

Hi, Rick. The case you remember is from 2014 and involved (now former) Mendocino ADA Damon Gardner, who used his CCW weapon to shoot one of two guys who were intent on kicking his head in.

Unfortunately, Gardner had been drinking for about six hours prior to this conflict, and based on the terms and conditions of the license application at the time, the license was invalid if he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which led to the criminal filing of carrying concealed and carrying loaded.

He pled guilty to a single count of carrying loaded (seems appropriate - ) and got 30 days public service and probation (and fired).

While it’s fine to say individuals should have formal notice of a change in their permit conditions, it doesn’t seem to have been required in 2014. Here’s the story.

But that issue is moot, as we have been blessed by SB 2 which codified the application elements into Section 26200 of the Penal Code, making it far less subjective.

26200. (a) While carrying a firearm as authorized by a license issued pursuant to this chapter, a licensee shall not do any of the following:[…]

(b) In addition to the restrictions and conditions listed in subdivision (a), a license issued pursuant to this chapter may also include any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the licensing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which a licensee may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

Of course, section 26200 doesn’t indicate any of its conditions are crimes, but it seems pretty clear that, should a licensee transgress one of these codified “shall nots”, they are, by law, not carrying “as authorized” and their license would “vaporize” without secondary notice.

 

[SomeOne]

OP, it's really up to your IA. The general recommendation is not to mess with the manufacturer designed safeties on your carry gun, but it's up to you to ignore it, if your IA doesn't care

 

[Dvrjon]

To be clear, re-buy your own handgun in a PPT. You cannot just to go a dealer and say, "DROS this for me." You could try to pawn it and you will have to re-DROS it back to yourself, but that is different. If you go into a gun shop with someone else and simply tell the dealer, "I am buying this gun from this guy," 10 days and $47.19 later it will be in your name as a semi-automatic.

This continues to confuse me.

When doing a PPT, the dealer obtains identity information from the Transferee (receives the gun) and the Transferor (transfers the gun). The Transferee formation is used by DOJ to ensure the Transferee is not prohibited from receiving the gun. The Transferor information is used by DOJ to ensure that, should the Transferee not be able to receive the firearm, the Transferor is able to have the gun returned to them.

In this process, the DOJ reviews a number of databases, one of which may be AFS. They will also check the serial number to ensure the gun is not listed as stolen. This should lead them to the fact that the firearm is registered as owned by the Transferee who is trying to obtain the gun.

At that point I would expect DOJ to intervene.

 

[Tank Mechanic]

Sounds like to do it correctly (re-dros), I would have to sell gun to other party. Then it is registered to him. Then buy it back.

 

[westsidearms]

This continues to confuse me.

When doing a PPT, the dealer obtains identity information from the Transferee (receives the gun) and the Transferor (transfers the gun). The Transferee formation is used by DOJ to ensure the Transferee is not prohibited from receiving the gun. The Transferor information is used by DOJ to ensure that, should the Transferee not be able to receive the firearm, the Transferor is able to have the gun returned to them.

In this process, the DOJ reviews a number of databases, one of which may be AFS. They will also check the serial number to ensure the gun is not listed as stolen. This should lead them to the fact that the firearm is registered as owned by the Transferee who is trying to obtain the gun.

At that point I would expect DOJ to intervene.

You assume too much. DOJ only checks the seller when the buyer is denied. Otherwise, they do not care. The DOJ does not review anything other than buyer background check process. The DOJ will not intervene.

Sounds like to do it correctly (re-dros), I would have to sell gun to other party. Then it is registered to him. Then buy it back.

Maybe "correctly". However, what I have described will work. Just pretend like you already sold it to them without doing a transfer. Go in and do a PPT on your own gun and 10 days later, you pick up and the process is done.

 

[supermike]

You assume too much. DOJ only checks the seller when the buyer is denied. Otherwise, they do not care. The DOJ does not review anything other than buyer background check process. The DOJ will not intervene.


Maybe "correctly". However, what I have described will work. Just pretend like you already sold it to them without doing a transfer. Go in and do a PPT on your own gun and 10 days later, you pick up and the process is done.

I know people have been DROS NEW non roster guns as roster guns at a premium to buyers. ie shadow 2 as sp01 with correct serial #. So I believe your method defiantly works. The DROS system is full of "loopholes"...

But PPT back to oneself in one transaction I assume the "seller"is technically lying on the DROS form? although the chance of bad ramification is super low.

 

[cobian1984]

I know people have been DROS NEW non roster guns as roster guns at a premium to buyers. ie shadow 2 as sp01 with correct serial #.

You mean like an FFL DROSing an off roster gun under the model name of an on roster one? Certainly wouldn’t see any advantage of doing this on a PPT since off rosters are allowed in that situation.

 

[Calibreeze]

The removal of all these safety measures is overrated. First of all - what are the chances of one having to use their weapon for self defense? Second - if all these safety measures will hinder you from properly utilizing your firearm in a self defense situation, then why would the firearm companies install them?

The best action one could undertake is train, train, train, train and train with the firearm that one is planing on utilizing to protect oneself and family. As an old friend of mine used to say, "don't worry about it!" It's as simple as that!!

 

[westsidearms]

I know people have been DROS NEW non roster guns as roster guns at a premium to buyers. ie shadow 2 as sp01 with correct serial #. So I believe your method defiantly works. The DROS system is full of "loopholes"...

But PPT back to oneself in one transaction I assume the "seller"is technically lying on the DROS form? although the chance of bad ramification is super low.

LOL. Yeah that is 100% illegal without a doubt and a definite risk for both FFL and purchaser if they can prove the purchaser knew about it too. That really would be something to be worried you get caught on and that would be worth the CA DOJ prosecuting someone for and at the least going after your license.

The CA DOJ getting another $37.19 in DROS fees for an owner to re-DROS their own gun to themselves to change something silly like firearm type or caliber when the gun is already in their name? They very likely will send you a Christmas card thanking you for another donation to their over bloated DROS fund.

 

[Makoman]

I've always wondered about mods myself. My IA, LASD states on their website:

The firearm you list on your CCW application must be a handgun that is registered to you in the state of California. “AR Pistol” platforms and similar handgun styles are prohibited. The handgun must also be capable of being concealed upon a person or within a reasonably sized bag/purse. Customization to firearms are permitted as long as it does not violate any State or Federal regulation. There are no caliber restrictions. The ammunition must comply with State and Federal regulations. Magazine capacity is not restricted. However, the use of any magazine with a capacity above 10 rounds is only permitted if the applicant is in legal possession of such magazine.

I've wondered what constitutes "customization." They've left it pretty vague.

 

[Natai]

Has anyone located anything in writing regarding what modifications are permitted/prohibited in Sacramento County?
I haven't found anything yet that even mentions modifications to the weapon. Closest I've seen is their list of reasons to deny a CCW permit does NOT include anything related to modifying the weapon.

 

[Sig So Sour of CA]

Stop asking what's legal. If it's not listed as prohibited on your IAs policy, then it's good to go. When you keep asking, it's when policy is changed and usually not in a good way.

All of these hypothetical " if I have a stroke and the police take my gun, and an armor looks at my gun and digs super deep to see I don't have my mag disco" is just dumb nonsense.

Again, look at your IAs policy, if it's not listed as prohibited, and it's legal, leave it alone. Stop asking.

 

[Dvrjon]

Has anyone located anything in writing regarding what modifications are permitted/prohibited in Sacramento County?
I haven't found anything yet that even mentions modifications to the weapon. Closest I've seen is their list of reasons to deny a CCW permit does NOT include anything related to modifying the weapon.

The only restrictions Sac Sheriff has placed on firearms is caliber. Go to: https://www.sacsheriff.com/pages/ccw_gun_permit.php. Scroll down to instruction information, then to:

Forbidden Calibers on Sacramento County CCW Permit

The following weapon calibers will not be allowed on a Sacramento County CCW permit.
5.56 or .223
7.62 or .308
7.62x39 or the AK cartridge
5.7 x 28mm
30 carbine
Rifle caliber weapons (AR-Pistol, AK-Pistol, etc.)

Sheriff Cooper expects license holders to make informed decisions on equipment modifications. After all, he’s authorized you to carry a loaded, concealed weapon in public. The SCSD has recently approved deputies using red dot sights, so they seem acceptable. However, it would probably be bad form to ask the IA if you can remove a factory-installed safety device from your gun.

Also, there is a Sac County-specific thread which might provide more focused discussion for you with further issues. It is at: https://caguns.net/threads/sacramento-county-ccw.985/

 

[M_N04H]

Long Beach CCW talks about this in the policy on the website.

Listed firearms shall be inspected by the training provider to ensure that it is safe, is operable, and in compliance with state and federal regulations and City of Long Beach CCW policy. The training provider and Department may prohibit a firearm from being listed on the applicant's license if an alteration or modification of the firearm's action has been made; this includes, but is not limited to, modifying the firearm's trigger components. Cosmetic or ergonomic changes such as replacement grips or night sights are acceptable.

 

[Natai]

The only restrictions Sac Sheriff has placed on firearms is caliber. Go to: https://www.sacsheriff.com/pages/ccw_gun_permit.php. Scroll down to instruction information, then to:

Sheriff Cooper expects license holders to make informed decisions on equipment modifications. After all, he’s authorized you to carry a loaded, concealed weapon in public. The SCSD has recently approved deputies using red dot sights, so they seem acceptable. However, it would probably be bad form to ask the IA if you can remove a factory-installed safety device from your gun.

Also, there is a Sac County-specific thread which might provide more focused discussion for you with further issues. It is at: https://caguns.net/threads/sacramento-county-ccw.985/

Thanks. I saw the stuff on caliber and their list of reasons to deny, but that's it. I don't want to submit a question to their email box, as that's just inviting someone in their office to start making their own policy. Hence my asking if there was any other written policy I need to be aware of.

Just wanted to be sure there wasn't something I'm missing, as I've got the California compliant P365. That requires removal of the magazine disconnect to be compatible with most 365 grips.