• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley

If that were the case Berettas and Sigs would be on her shit list too. Nope, she just hates Glocks because of their reputation.

Pretty much. There are currently a crap ton of guns that "get a pass" where common gun solvents can remove the LCI but somehow the tactile, hard to remove bump on the glock extractor is "not enough". [thinking]

-Mike
 
Adding to the dilemma, according to the lawsuit, is the fact that the 3rd and 4th generation Glock pistols at the center of the dispute have an extractor-based load indicator that reveals at a glance whether there is a cartridge in the chamber. This is virtually identical to extractor-based load indicators on competing pistols from other manufacturers, all of which are legal in Massachusetts.

Oh, c'mon. I'm sure the fact that the LCI on the MA based company's SW99 is legal and the glock's is not is just pure coincidence. <sarc>

Incidentally that red line on the slide is gone after 2 maybe 3 cleanings. As is the red dot on the firing pin that is supposed to let you know it is cocked.
 
I see you are going with a very narrow scope here. Makes sense. Target the low hanging fruit.

I'm just reading through the complaint now. While the LCI issue is a prominent point, it looks like the lawsuit is looking to invalidate the whole section of "consumer safety" bull. IANAL, so I'm probably wrong, but the thought makes me [smile].
 
I seem to see a hole in your argument. Would you like me to ask about it out in the open or privately?

ETA:
After discussion with someone who knows, the hole I saw wasn't a hole except in my understanding of things.

Thanks to that person.
 
Last edited:
I know you were joking, but just for the benefit of everyone else, a motion for preliminary injunction can take 6 months to a year to resolve (or more), and that's just at the district court level.

Could the AG just roll over and not bother to fight this losing battle for them?
 
Could the AG just roll over and not bother to fight this losing battle for them?

i was going to ask the same thing

something like "oh well it was a good run" or maybe just fight it in the first court then not appeal? to avoid it getting anymore precedent setting?
 
i was going to ask the same thing

something like "oh well it was a good run" or maybe just fight it in the first court then not appeal? to avoid it getting anymore precedent setting?

The AG could as well drag it on as long as possible as they can AS LONG AS they don't spend any money for court costs in the mean time.

Then after it goes to court "plead guilty" (not the correct legal term) for being a douche and call it a day.
 
Could the AG just roll over and not bother to fight this losing battle for them?

It's possible, but I rather doubt it's likely. The state did pretty much roll over in Wesson (the pot case) and only fought to limit the damage. Giving up a gun ban is probably a much bigger deal to the state than giving licenses to the small class of people similarly situated to Wesson (people with out of state misdemeanor marijuana possession convictions).
 
It's possible, but I rather doubt it's likely. The state did pretty much roll over in Wesson (the pot case) and only fought to limit the damage. Giving up a gun ban is probably a much bigger deal to the state than giving licenses to the small class of people similarly situated to Wesson (people with out of state misdemeanor marijuana possession convictions).

With Coakley's campaign for governor (http://www.marthacoakley.com) she will probably put up a good fight against all those cheap Glocks flooding our streets and killing innocent people.
 
The market for old used glocks going to dry up. I also have a karma post for 500 rds of .22 if your already planning on donating.
 
Back
Top Bottom