Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley

[bigblue]

The LCI: Actively undermining safe gun handling in the name of safety. Brought to you by liberals who don't understand guns. For the children, somehow.

Best summary of a useless feature I've seen yet.

 

[BostonBullit]

"I know it when I see it"

I don't want to get into who has standing to do what, but I am confused about COMM2A's vagueness approach. AG said:
"The handguns presently manufactured by Glock, Inc. ("Glock") are not incompliance with the Massachusetts Handgun Sales Regulations, because they lack aneffective load indicator or magazine safety disconnect. This Office notified Glock ofthis fact in 2004, and since that time Glock has not notified this Office of any change..."

The briefs seem to address only the load indicator, and there is nothing addressing the mag safety disconnect. Why did that disappear from the briefs?
The Glock load indicator is a joke. I don't think anyone seriously considers a .002" protrusion to be an effective load indicator. Is it COMM2A's position that the .002 is effective? and is it COMM2A's position that Glocks have a mag safety disconnect?

Or is this case simply I don't think the AG has authority to regulate safety and load indicators are meaningless in any case.

I consider it to be an effective loaded chamber indicator.

 

[economist]

The LCI was never intended to be a 'safety' feature and things like the AG's regs really pollute the device's original purpose. LCIs have been a feature of some guns since at least 1934 and probably earlier. Remember, at that time, people (like in the military) frequently didn't carry are round in the chamber. The purpose of the LCI is to inform or assure the user that the chamber is charged (or not) and that the gun is ready to use. No LCI => rack your slide. The idea that it's a warning device is simple silly.

Interesting -- I wasn't even thinking about the historical context. It would nice if the AG were concerned about people getting into a gunfight with an unloaded gun: "Remember, always carry one in the pipe. But if you don't, check that LCI before you shoot. Nothing is more useless than an unloaded gun. --Mass AG".

 

[bigblue]

Interesting -- I wasn't even thinking about the historical context. It would nice if the AG were concerned about people getting into a gunfight with an unloaded gun: "Remember, always carry one in the pipe. But if you don't, check that LCI before you shoot. Nothing is more useless than an unloaded gun. --Mass AG".

See now THAT would be consumer protection!

 

[Whutmeworry]

The Glock load indicator is a joke. I don't think anyone seriously considers a .002" protrusion to be an effective load indicator. Is it COMM2A's position that the .002 is effective? and is it COMM2A's position that Glocks have a mag safety disconnect?

If the .002" protrusion as an LCI is considered ineffective, then the AG shouldn't be allowing several other handgun models, such as the Beretta 92FS, to be sold because it's LCI is almost identical. The fact that several other handgun models with LCIs very similar to those on Glocks are approved by the AG to be sold in the Commiewealth, means that she really just doesn't want "Law Enforcement" pistols, i.e. Glocks, to be available for sale to us serfs.

 

[jsacco41]

If there is any way to tell the difference between loaded or not loaded, then it is an "effective loaded chamber indicator". That would be the definition.

Nevermind the rule of assume every firearm is loaded, which therefore eliminates the need for an LCI at all from a consumer protection standpoint.

 

[92G]

no matter how wonderfully designed, I consider an LCI to be more of a liability than asset. anything mechanical can fail. and to be misled about the nature of chambered vs. unchambered is too critical for me to rely on ANY loaded chamber indicator.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The Glock load indicator is a joke. I don't think anyone seriously considers a .002" protrusion to be an effective load indicator. Is it COMM2A's position that the .002 is effective?

I don't know the protrustion dimension on the new Glock LCIs, but I have seen and examined them.

Yes, they are effective. As effective as the Beretta 92 series indicator based on the same concept. Ok, here's a challenge.

Put 10 Glocks in front of me (with the new LCI) and see if I can tell you which ones are loaded by looking at them.

Repeat in a totally dark room, and have me make the determination by touch.

I'll score 20/20.

 

[Glockster30]

no matter how wonderfully designed, I consider an LCI to be more of a liability than asset. anything mechanical can fail. and to be misled about the nature of chambered vs. unchambered is too critical for me to rely on ANY loaded chamber indicator.

I understand what you stating about anything mechanical can break Squib, but the protusion on the Glock lci is machined out of one part that is the extractor. Therefore, it cannot break unless the extractor itself breaks, which would make the gun useless, although one could still load one round, shoot, then extract the case manually (and repeat).

 

[crazymjb]

If given the choice I wilm take either and extractor or witness hole based LCI over none. I lile being able to skip a press check.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[jefftk]

I don't know the protrustion dimension on the new Glock LCIs, but I have seen and examined them.

Yes, they are effective. As effective as the Beretta 92 series indicator based on the same concept. Ok, here's a challenge.

Put 10 Glocks in front of me (with the new LCI) and see if I can tell you which ones are loaded by looking at them.

Repeat in a totally dark room, and have me make the determination by touch.

I'll score 20/20.

Next try the same test with an [approved] M&P with its peep-hole LCI.

 

[bigblue]

Next try the same test with an [approved] M&P with its peep-hole LCI.

Well clearly you have to shine the flashlight in the hole and look down the barrel for that to work in the dark!

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

"I know it when I see it"

I don't want to get into who has standing to do what, but I am confused about COMM2A's vagueness approach. AG said:
"The handguns presently manufactured by Glock, Inc. ("Glock") are not incompliance with the Massachusetts Handgun Sales Regulations, because they lack aneffective load indicator or magazine safety disconnect. This Office notified Glock ofthis fact in 2004, and since that time Glock has not notified this Office of any change..."

The briefs seem to address only the load indicator, and there is nothing addressing the mag safety disconnect. Why did that disappear from the briefs?
The Glock load indicator is a joke. I don't think anyone seriously considers a .002" protrusion to be an effective load indicator. Is it COMM2A's position that the .002 is effective? and is it COMM2A's position that Glocks have a mag safety disconnect?

Or is this case simply I don't think the AG has authority to regulate safety and load indicators are meaningless in any case.

This is a regulatory interpretations case. Magazine disconnects are not part of the case because the definition of a magazine disconnect is clear and unambiguous. The suit does NOT challenge the AG's authority to regulate handguns or any specific aspects of the regulation other than how she interprets "effective load indicator" as it applies to Glocks. Because the AG has not provided a specific and objective definition, no one know what is and is not "effective". The "plainly indicates" standard is very subjective. The Glock LCI is essentially similar to that on other guns on the market in Massachusetts, gun that the AG has NOT determined are not in compliance with her regulation. The fig leaf the AG hides behind is her statement that they've never actually made a statement that any LCI is 'effective'. The bottom line is that can apply this "because we said so" interpretation to ANY handgun for sale in MA that does not have a magazine disconnect.

I don't think a 'Mass hole' plainly indicates anything because it is a visual-only indicator. I can't see it in the dark, I can't see it without my glasses and and can't tactically determine if there's a round in the chamber. On the other hand as a firearms instructor and competitor, I think the Glock LCI implementation is both effective and elegant. When properly holding the gun, I merely need to move my trigger finger 1/4" to determine whether there's a round in the chamber. And I can actually see it without my glasses. Finally, the accomplish this without extra drilling, cutting and moving parts.

 

[drgrant]

The fun thing is the AG doesn't like Glock's extractor but somehow a bunch where the indicator can be removed with common gun solvents are somehow or another OK.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

K. Dragger is right on - which is why the AG is not arguing the Glock loaded chamber indicator is effective, but that the AG is the final and only interpreter of the regulations, and also does not have to issue a-priori interpretationsl

 

[yanici]

Would you be allowed to bring a working Glock into the courtroom to demonstrate how the extractor operates and show how it sticks out using snap caps? Perhaps just the side will suffice.

 

[bigblue]

Would you be allowed to bring a working Glock into the courtroom to demonstrate how the extractor operates and show how it sticks out using snap caps? Perhaps just the side will suffice.

" the AG is not arguing the Glock loaded chamber indicator is effective, but that the AG is the final and only interpreter of the regulations"

 

[yanici]

" the AG is not arguing the Glock loaded chamber indicator is effective, but that the AG is the final and only interpreter of the regulations"

Yeah, but this would prove how wrong their interpretations are.

 

[bigblue]

Yeah, but this would prove how wrong their interpretations are.

They simply do not care.

 

[hv55maxx]

If the .002" protrusion as an LCI is considered ineffective, then the AG shouldn't be allowing several other handgun models, such as the Beretta 92FS, to be sold because it's LCI is almost identical. The fact that several other handgun models with LCIs very similar to those on Glocks are approved by the AG to be sold in the Commiewealth, means that she really just doesn't want "Law Enforcement" pistols, i.e. Glocks, to be available for sale to us serfs.

it all boils down to they don't want glocks freely available because it is quite possible the largest pre ban magazine market besides AR15s

 

[Ringworm]

Sadly, yes it does. But when those laws regulate a protected right, we get to use the federal courts to bring them in line.

Such as being forced to get a license to exercise a constitutional right?

 

[Neuro]

Wow dismissed for lacking standing? Go get that appeal !!!!

 

[Realtor MA]

The liberals always demonstrate the same lack of understanding. And anyone who thinks it through has to conclude that they know full well they aren't protecting anyone. They are requiring an LCI and thinking it will save people??? If you're familiar with a gun you may know that the LCI is there but you'll also know that it's mostly useless. I seriously doubt anyone would rely on an LCI. ie) I'm going to clean my gun. I'll check the LCI and get started. **** no!! And for the people who don't understand guns. Say a teenager who picks up a gun somewhere. He has no clue what he's looking at. You would think that they would have to demonstrate to some extent that their regulations are actually making people safer. In fact it could be argued that anyone relying on an LCI is less safe.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yeah, but this would prove how wrong their interpretations are.

Assuming, of course, we get the case to the point where we can argue merits of the Glock LCI in court.

We had many points to hammer the Village Vault on (I had 42 questions, each of which would prove participation in an unethical or usurious practice), but we could not ask ANY of them since the court ruled the defendant was not a "state actor".

 

[drgrant]

It seems as though the state likes to wiggle its way out of these things on minor technicalities, because if it had to face the brunt of the actual argument, it would most certainly lose.

-Mike

 

[kelton]

Nail polish must be included with all new Glocks sold, my daughter would love it

 

[TayNinh_66]

I don't know the protrustion dimension on the new Glock LCIs, but I have seen and examined them.
Yes, they are effective. As effective as the Beretta 92 series indicator based on the same concept. Ok, here's a challenge.
Put 10 Glocks in front of me (with the new LCI) and see if I can tell you which ones are loaded by looking at them.
Repeat in a totally dark room, and have me make the determination by touch.
I'll score 20/20.

If my wife scores 1/4 is it effective? And even if it prevails on appeal or remand, you still can't buy a Glock because of mag safety disconnect, so what's the point.

(Note: I was trained on 1911's and learned to check the chamber. I consider any other technique unsafe.)

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Would you be allowed to bring a working Glock into the courtroom to demonstrate how the extractor operates and show how it sticks out using snap caps? Perhaps just the side will suffice.

We could just borrow one from a court security officer.

it all boils down to they don't want glocks freely available because it is quite possible the largest pre ban magazine market besides AR15s

^This. That's the only reason this is happening. Glocks are a popular and preferred handgun by all kinds of people. Back int he 90s it was also a 'gangsta' gun.

 

[Gooman24]

If my wife scores 1/4 is it effective? And even if it prevails on appeal or remand, you still can't buy a Glock because of mag safety disconnect, so what's the point.

(Note: I was trained on 1911's and learned to check the chamber. I consider any other technique unsafe.)

Um yes you could. They sold them as in for like a week until the AG pulled this shit.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

If my wife scores 1/4 is it effective? And even if it prevails on appeal or remand, you still can't buy a Glock because of mag safety disconnect, so what's the point. (Note: I was trained on 1911's and learned to check the chamber. I consider any other technique unsafe.)

My understanding is that it is an either or proposition. You either have an LCI, or you have a mag safety thing.

Nobody is arguing that an LCI is the safe way to determine if a round is loaded. It isn't, and the rule is retarded.