Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    383

    Default that was my question

    Quote Originally Posted by sig2009 View Post
    If the AG has a problem with Glocks the police should not be allowed to carry them either.
    I was surprised to see this summer a LEO in Wellfleet carrying a stainless revolver but I'd like to know how many MA (and nationwide) departments carry Glocks? Seems to me a useful argument to the stupidity of the AG regulations. If they are so dangerous.......

    Bill

  2. #22
    NES Member MajesticUSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cape Cod
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Bottom line is: The AG wants a definitive loaded chamber indicator. When Glock submitted the MA pistols for compliance they tried to use the extractor as a loaded chamber indicator and in reality we all know it's not intended to be one plus it only sticks out about 3mm more with a round in the chamber which doesn't make much easier to quickly determine if a round is in the chamber or not. If Glock puts a "mass hole" on the barrel like sig does and S&W does with the M&P or painted the top of the extractor with red paint so when the extractor sticks out the paint is visible... Glocks would be compliant in mass within a week.

    I called Glock in Georgia this summer a number of times and after a few days I spoke with the attorney who is in charge of dealing with all of the states laws regarding their pistols. He told me Glock has no intention to change their "world class designed pistols" for a single state in this country. He said "there is just not enough market share to redesign the pistol for one state" and "the laws in Massachusetts are so unclear it's not worth the hassle"

    Until the gen5 comes out with a loaded chamber indicator or glock revamps their current design for mass (Laughing) I don't think there's any future of LNIB, BNIB or any Glocks in Mass at free state prices.
    Last edited by MajesticUSA; 12-12-2010 at 12:35 AM.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MajesticUSA View Post
    Bottom line is: The AG wants a definitive loaded chamber indicator. In 1993-1994 when Glock submitted the MA pistols for compliance they tried to use the extractor as a loaded chamber indicator and in reality we all know it's not intended to be one plus it only sticks out about 3mm more with a round in the chamber which doesn't make much easier to quickly determine if a round is in the chamber or not. If Glock puts a "mass hole" on the barrel like sig does and S&W does with the M&P or painted the top of the extractor with red paint so when the extractor sticks out the paint is visible... Glocks would be compliant in mass within a week.
    Bulls**t. The LCI on the current Glocks is fine. You can easily tell the difference when it's out just by feel, as well as visually. Why does the AG's office allow LCIs where the paint will wash off with common gun solvents but Glock's isn't allowed? Explain that one.

    Let's not make excuses for the AG's bulls**t reasoning here. The fact of the matter is the AG's office has a "thing" against most striker fired handguns, especially Glocks. The recent M&P 45 debacle is further evidence of this. (S&W tried to release it with the manual safety hoping it would be good enough to get by the AG, no dice... a few dealers sold them for less than a month, then stopped rugsweeping. ) Eventually S&W had to resort to implementing the same level of gayness as they used on the other M&P models they sell in MA.

    BTW, there is no submission for compliance on the AG end. The MA AG's office has never approved handguns for that tier of compliance. The only way whether a vendor can find out if their gun is compliant or not is to start selling it and see if the AG whines or not. Glock attempted to sell the guns in 2004 in MA (with a larded up 10+ lb trigger) and sales were blocked by the AG's office at that point.... after about a 2-3 month window. Your "1993-1994" thing makes no sense- Ch 180 hadn't even become law yet at that point. There was no handgun compliance in MA in the early 90s.

    FWIW the only thing I can agree with you on is I think Glock is done messing around in MA. I doubt they will ever bother intentionally trying to make an AG compliant handgun ever again. They are probably waiting for legal action to destroy the basis of the MA handgun compliance BS like everyone else is. That's really the only viable solution in the long run anyways.

    -Mike
    Last edited by drgrant; 12-12-2010 at 12:37 AM.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by b79holmes View Post
    I was surprised to see this summer a LEO in Wellfleet carrying a stainless revolver but I'd like to know how many MA (and nationwide) departments carry Glocks? Seems to me a useful argument to the stupidity of the AG regulations. If they are so dangerous.......

    Bill
    I know of many municipal police departments in MA that use Glocks and for some reason most of them seem to prefer the Glock 22 although some still use the Glock 17 or Glock 19. I know that my local police (Billerica) carry Glock 21's (or Glock 30's for off-duty/detective use).

    The whole LCI arguement is crap. The AG posted a list of "consumer safety" requirements for manufactures to adhere to with no real way to have their product approved by the establishment for sale. This leaves them in a tight spot to come up with things they think they can sell but that they won't know if then can actually sell them until they do and open themselves (and FFL's) to litigation from the AG's office. Bottom line is that Glock tried (and as drgrant stated complied to the law) but the AG doesn't want them in the hands of non-LEO's so they made a stink about it.

  5. #25
    NES Member MajesticUSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cape Cod
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Trust me drgrant I'm the biggest fan of glock there is and in no way side with the AG. I'm just playing devils advocate here. We all know there looking for excuses to block new glock sales in this state. Exactly like you said it really all stems from the anti striker fired pistol sentiment the ag office has. Regarding the glock "LCI" all I'm saying is the springfield xd, m&P and sigs loaded chamber indicators are easier for a novice or new gun owner to see than the glocks extractor/indicator. Also Yea you are right I meant to say 2004 not 1994 when the new "MASS Compliant glocks" with the 10lb trigger was released.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by b79holmes View Post
    I was surprised to see this summer a LEO in Wellfleet carrying a stainless revolver but I'd like to know how many MA (and nationwide) departments carry Glocks? Seems to me a useful argument to the stupidity of the AG regulations. If they are so dangerous.......

    Bill
    He was probably a special or intermittent officer. Many departments issue a certain handgun (or give you a few choices) but some departments with special/intermittent/reserve/auxiliary officers allow them to carry pretty much anything they want. Some might restrict it to certain calibers but some don't care. Chances are that guy was probably a full-time armored car driver and used the revolver he had to buy for his day job (or he was over 70)

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MajesticUSA View Post
    Trust me I'm the biggest fan of glock there is and in no way side with the AG. I'm just playing devils advocate here. We all know there looking for excuses to block new glock sales in this state. Exactly like you said it really all stems from the anti striker fired pistol sentiment the ag office has. Regarding the glock "LCI" all I'm saying is the springfield xd, m&P and sigs loaded chamber indicators are easier for a novice or new gun owner to see than the glocks extractor/indicator. Also Yea you are right I meant to say 2004 not 1994 when the new "MASS Compliant glocks" with the 10lb trigger was released.
    Also remember that the AG isn't the only devil here. Manufacturers also need to contend with the EOPS and their own roster. As illegal as their roster is it at least has real requirements and testing that handgun has to pass to be on the list. Some manufacters just don't care to go through all that to get their gun on a roster that may or may not be able to be sold to non-LEO's depending on who the AG is currently.

    Notice that there are no Springfield XD's on the EOPS roster? Why? Because Springfield doesn't care to go through the testing procedure. Maybe they think they'll get blocked by the AG like Glock or maybe they don't feel that they can sell enough of them in MA to make it worth their $$$. Does this mean you'll never see a LEO in MA with an XD ... no. Remember that police departments can order firearms directly bypassing FFL's and the EOPS requirements. This means to a manufacturer that spending the money to get on the EOPS roster and abiding by the AG's regulations means they can sell to individual LEO's and normal folks. This does not cut into their sales to municipal or state law enforcement departments.

    Also any gun owner who absolutely needs a LCI to determine that his/her firearm is loaded probably shouldn't have one in the first place.
    Last edited by abomb60; 12-12-2010 at 12:55 AM.

  8. #28
    NES Member MajesticUSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cape Cod
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abomb60 View Post
    Also any gun owner who absolutely needs a LCI to determine that his/her firearm is loaded probably shouldn't have one in the first place.
    Exactly...

  9. #29

    Default

    The fact of the matter is the AG's office has a "thing" against [STRIKE]most striker fired[/STRIKE] handguns, especially Glocks.
    FIFY Mike!

    I think that the true objective is to ban/limit as many handgun models/mfrs as possible. Both Taurus' and Glock's legal team came to that conclusion too and thus their decisions to "give up" on MA.
    Mass. Gun Laws By and For Non-Lawyers (How To Stay Legal and Out of Trouble) - Seminar
    http://home.comcast.net/~safety-instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor and Range Officer

  10. #30

    Default

    Our AG used to be Tom Reilly, who was the AG in 2004 when Glock tried to get back into MA. His office stopped this cold. Reilly hails from where? Springfield, MA, home of S&W, who seemed to be able to get most of their models approved. Right now, who dominates the polymer framed, striker fired pistol market in MA? Do the math.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •