Does anyone use the S+W revolver internal lock instead of a trigger lock?

[TragicallyHipGrandpa]

Title is self-explanatory.
After all, the internal lock was designed by engineers to make the firearm inoperable, making a trigger lock at least moot, at most overkill.

I know, I know, you get stopped travelling to the range and it's the cop's interpretation of the law blah, blah, blah, firearms confiscated blah, blah, blah, just easier to trigger lock it to be safe blah, blah, blah.

I just want to hear what others do with their S&W revolvers.
What can I say?
I'm bored at work today...

 

[trebor2880]

I keep it simple and trigger lock it. There's also the RO to deal with, every range visit, blah, blah!.

 

[Polish-Jack]

Technically the law requires a "secure locking device". The internal trigger lock is not a device. There was a court case, v. Porter, I think, where a guy long term stored some guns an a wooden box that was sealed with screws but no lock. Even though it was tough to get into the law requires a lock. This may be the same where the law requires a seperate device.

 

[Scotty454]

No.

 

[4n2t0]

No.

 

[mactroneng]

Technically the law requires a "secure locking device". The internal trigger lock is not a device. There was a court case, v. Porter, I think, where a guy long term stored some guns an a wooden box that was sealed with screws but no lock. Even though it was tough to get into the law requires a lock. This may be the same where the law requires a seperate device.

The dude in Porter didn't get in trouble because it wasn't a separate device, he got into trouble because

1) He was on bail and wasn't supposed to have guns to begin with, and

2) Exposed nails and screws are obviously not secure in any way (unless they've had their heads torqued off somehow I suppose, but that goes beyond the ruling and what most people do).

The judge in Porter actual makes a big deal about having to use a locking device of some sort and considering that the internal lock is a lock that requires a special key, I think it'd pass. And the person I spoke with at the CFP a couple years ago is in agreement with me.

 

[Andronicus]

Technically the law requires a "secure locking device". The internal trigger lock is not a device. ....

I do not agree. The internal trigger lock IS a device, just not a "separate device". But the law doesn't mention 'separate', just locking device.

 

[Scotty454]

I do not agree. The internal trigger lock IS a device, just not a "separate device". But the law doesn't mention 'separate', just locking device.

More of a mechanism than a device.

 

[TragicallyHipGrandpa]

I do not agree. The internal trigger lock IS a device, just not a "separate device". But the law doesn't mention 'separate', just locking device.

This is my point. The S&W Internal Locking System is an internal mechanism, or "device" designed by engineers for the sole purpose of locking out the capability of firing a revolver. Its intent and purpose is the same as a trigger lock, just one is built-in and one is added-on or applied separately.
I would further argue that there are also "trigger locks" (using the term loosely) that are pathetic pieces of plastic and cheaper key/combo trigger locks that malfunction and open with a little prying. Anecdotal stories exist of the S&W ILS failing, but it is likely far less frequently; therefore, I would maintain that the built-in lock is at least equal to a trigger lock and possibly superior.

End of the day, thanks for the responses, but I think the range officer will have the final say.

 

[BattleRife]

All of my S&W revolvers pre-date the Hillary hole, but if I had a newer one I wouldn't doubt the legality of using it.

 

[TragicallyHipGrandpa]

Reading the actual regulation, I believe the internal locking device meets the requirement of rendering the firearm inoperable:

11. An individual may transport a restricted firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device;
(c) it is in a locked container that is made of an opaque material and is of such strength, construction and nature that it cannot readily be broken open or into or accidentally opened during transportation

 

[4n2t0]

Reading the actual regulation, I believe the internal locking device meets the requirement of rendering the firearm inoperable:

11. An individual may transport a restricted firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device;
(c) it is in a locked container that is made of an opaque material and is of such strength, construction and nature that it cannot readily be broken open or into or accidentally opened during transportation

Perfect, you're all set.

 

[Moe]

Most of my S&W revolvers are older models that predate the internal lock, however I recently purchased a new model 19 with the lock. I have been using it and I believe I have no reason to doubt that it is meeting the requirement of "rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device".

I could someday be subjected to the strong arm of the law for it, but if I do I think I would win in court. I don't even think it would get that far.

Cheers
Moe