TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote:How's this for a worst case scenario?

You know the guy Devoe who killed 6 people last weekend? He did it with a gun that he STOLE from the guy he was living with.

Suppose instead that he had broken into your house and stolen YOUR S&W where you had disabled the lock? Then he goes and kills 6 people with the gun.

If you had not defeated the lock, the gun would have been useless to him.

What do you think a jury is going to think about THAT?

I suppose that one could be held liable for a gun that came with a bicycle lock that wasn't used either. If it was a minor that stole it, One could be found civily and criminally liable for not having it locked. I think that one would be hard pressed to find a real gun person expert witness that could claim with a staight face that an internal locked gun is safer.

By the way I don't advocate not locking guns up. Its just that those darned internal things could get someone killed. And the ones that came with my Beretta and Ruger make dandy bicycle locks

Nazrat wrote: The jury is going to think that the intervening and superceding act of theft followed by murder negate any liability for disabling an internal lock for which the key is universal.

Possibly. But remember that one of the main reasons for these types of locks is to prevent the use of the firearm by "unauthorized" persons.

Nazrat wrote: You might have a better argument if someone handled the firearm with the lock flag on and the weapon discharged. Liability would become an issue there.

Oh yes! A far better example than mine. If you disable the lock, and the lock flag is showing while, unknown to the person handling it, the gun is still capable of firing, whoever disabled the lock would be in a real pickle.