PythonGuy - You said, " If you unlocked it and shot someone that would just show intent, you aren't disabling it because it would work again with the twist of the key" and I sure agree with you. My point is that the lock must be in a non-functioning state for the gun to operate as a gun. IOW, one cannot target-shoot, hunt, defend one's life and limb (to include shooting someone) without the lock being in a non-functioning, non-locked state. A self-defense shooting is an intentional act so whether the lock is "disabled" or non-functioning because it is unlocked or because it is no longer present seems to me to be beside the point. The removal of the lock, if followed by an accidental discharge of the firearm, e.g. by a child or some other unauthorized user, which caused bodily harm might well be cause for grief to the gunowner who removed the lock. I just don't see the lock or its lack having any logical connection to an intentional firing of the weapon since the lock must be non-functioning in such a case no matter how it is rendered non-functional. But then, I'm not schooled in the subtle and sophisticated mysteries of legalism. It seems bizarre to think that if you tried to defend yourself and died because the gun was locked that an inquiry might find you to be acting legally within your rights (posthumously) by trying to shoot a safely-locked gun but if you actually fired the gun you might be held liable because you used an unlocked weapon either by removing the lock or by "showing intent" by having it unlocked before using it. Yikes.
