No its more because judges think theyre god.
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
-
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
- Thread starter BostonBullit
- Start date
Palladin
NES Member
Bingo
Any chance that we could get all the PDs in the state to give up their Glocks? Because if they're so dangerous then the cops shouldn't have them either, right?
Once we lose, I doubt the courts will ever come around. Anti gun forces have slowly been winning by pushing guns out of the norm and out of the public sphere.
Mass-diver
NES Member
This. Clearly glocks are defective and poorly made, why isn't the AG protecting cops?
This is why the lawyers I know hate their jobs.
Article 8 is ineffective. Time to put Article 7 into action.
As long as you get paid, right? I have family in the career field. Sometimes the jury says **** you, sometimes the judge says **** you. As I said though, Im pretty turned off to litigation, and law school has made me somewhat disgusted in how the system works in reality.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
I still think the decision was hastily crafted post-Orlando, though someone I respect as knowing more about the system than I do disagrees.
I think it's safe to say that you only have a 50% (at best) chance of getting a fair hearing on a gun case in any court, state or federal (ok, maybe 10% chance in state court). Comm2a knew we would win some and lose some, and we will stay in it for the long haul.
In the meantime, I try to take some solace in the people I know with LTCs, or newly unrestricted LTCs, who would not have these but for Comm2A. That makes it worthwhile, even in the face of crushing defeats.
More than the decision, I am disappointed that the court basically decided to accept one side's assertions on the "effectiveness" issue as fact, rather than let both sides provide expert testimony and demonstrations to prove, or disprove, effectiveness in court.
I think it's safe to say that you only have a 50% (at best) chance of getting a fair hearing on a gun case in any court, state or federal (ok, maybe 10% chance in state court). Comm2a knew we would win some and lose some, and we will stay in it for the long haul.
In the meantime, I try to take some solace in the people I know with LTCs, or newly unrestricted LTCs, who would not have these but for Comm2A. That makes it worthwhile, even in the face of crushing defeats.
More than the decision, I am disappointed that the court basically decided to accept one side's assertions on the "effectiveness" issue as fact, rather than let both sides provide expert testimony and demonstrations to prove, or disprove, effectiveness in court.
Last edited:
Any time a judge refuses to hear evidence it's clear to me they've already made up their mind regardless of the merits.
If Glock actually cared and stopped all LEO sales & service in MA in response to this crap, the uproar probably would cost Healy her job. More companies need to be like Barrett and tell states you either want all of our business or your getting none of it.
If Glock actually cared and stopped all LEO sales & service in MA in response to this crap, the uproar probably would cost Healy her job. More companies need to be like Barrett and tell states you either want all of our business or your getting none of it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
The problem for Glock is that such and action would be seen as "anti law-enforcement", be widely discussed in LE journals, and cost Glock sales in other states. Barrett probably didn't give a rodent's rectum about the fallout effect with LE agencies outside of CA when he made his decision. Plus Barrett is a patriot first, a businessman second.
Glock could state that they are withdrawing sales and service to MA as a commitment to 'perfection', as the MA AG has determined their Gen3-4 products to be 'unsatisfactory', and they look forward to receiving guidance in writing from the AG's office on how to improve their product in the continued pursuit of 'perfection'.
Or something like that.
Or something like that.
Actually, I think the decision was written three months ago when the case was heard and put on the shelf until now and was release at almost exactly the 90 day mark.
MachineHead
NES Member
It'd be great if they did this and gave LEOs from different states a steeper discount and wrote off MA LEOs. How much business do they really get from MA cops anyway? This decision is a slap in the face and Glock has the leverage for doing something monumental.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
Screw with the supply to MA cops (which would be difficult, since PDs generally by from distributors rather than factory direct) and you risk being seen as an unreliable supplier to other cops, plus there is the "offending of the brotherhood" effect.
73BLow
NES Member
Given the state we live in, I thought the chances of a fair and unbiased judicial process for this case was slim.
I read the news early thing this morning. Then, I spent the day helping my father (also a NES member, Comm2A supporter, Marine, combat veteran, and all around great dad) muscling refrigerators from one house to another. He taught me to always work hard. When I got home this evening, sweaty and tired, I found an envelope in my mailbox. I opened it and there was a nice silver Comm2A coin inside to keep my other one company. It put a smile on my face and also reminded me to keep working hard.
I'd like to thank Comm2A for doing their best to fight this foolish restriction. I read most of the documents relating to this case and many other current and past projects. It's apparent to me that you guys work hard for us.
Thanks,
B.Low
I read the news early thing this morning. Then, I spent the day helping my father (also a NES member, Comm2A supporter, Marine, combat veteran, and all around great dad) muscling refrigerators from one house to another. He taught me to always work hard. When I got home this evening, sweaty and tired, I found an envelope in my mailbox. I opened it and there was a nice silver Comm2A coin inside to keep my other one company. It put a smile on my face and also reminded me to keep working hard.
I'd like to thank Comm2A for doing their best to fight this foolish restriction. I read most of the documents relating to this case and many other current and past projects. It's apparent to me that you guys work hard for us.
Thanks,
B.Low
P-14
NES Member
Comm2a: Take the wins. Learn from the losses.
You have made a difference in the quality of our lives.
I will continue to support you and urge others to do so.
Sent from the Warlock Command Center
You have made a difference in the quality of our lives.
I will continue to support you and urge others to do so.
Sent from the Warlock Command Center
Thank you for your kind words.
We're pretty disheartened, but I'm not entirely surprised.
One of the reasons I think we're still here is that we're not easily discouraged. I did think it would be easier when we started out, but I also know it wouldn't be a cake walk. It's been tougher than I'd anticipated, but things are still getting better overall. We'll lick our wounds, cry like little babies for a day, and then we'll move on. There's just so much more to do.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
While I understand the sentiment and truly appreciate the enthusiasm -- I think for Glock this ruling will merit little more than a blurb to be glanced over on an inter-office memo. Upon reading it the folks at Glock will collectively shrug their shoulders, nod knowingly to each other as if to say "Glad we didn't invest any more time and money there," before getting back to the very profitable business of mass producing firearms for the rest of the U.S. and the world.
No, the people slapped in the face here by this failure to hear evidence are the plaintiffs and citizens of Massachusetts in general -- who sadly I believe do not really enter into Glock's calculus. [sad2]
I hope the plaintiffs find an avenue for appeal, but one thing I am pretty sure of if there is one it will continue to be home-grown and supported without benefit of help from outside the commonwealth least of all Glock.
fshalor
NES Member
How the ruck. In the dark. With wet hands. And in a hurry. I can know whether any of the glocks in the house are loaded by a sweap of my trigger finger along the slide.
Well guess what. They just opened a hole can of whoopass on themselves because that means every craptsstic safety ever use is now subject to the same ruling.
Sent from my LG-K371 using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
I know Glock's general counsel, and speak with him on a semi-regular basis.
What can Glock do, short of risking poisoning their corporate reputation in the LE Community in general, to support MA citizens that is consistent with good business practice? Remember, if they take a stand against one state's LE agencies, they are taking a stand against all LE agencies (diss one bro, you have dissed all his homies).
The Glock case was of great symbolic importance but, in the end, nobody is losing, or gaining an LTC (or LTC restriction) over this. I am grateful that this loss is not one that serves to strip peaceful gun owners of their access to the necessary state paperwork for ownership.
And, this is by far the last of the cases we will lose. The important thing is being able to look back and honestly ask "did we make a mistake in bringing this case?". In this situation, I am confident the answer is no.
There was a time any court in the south would summarily reject any attempt by blacks to get due process or a racially balanced jury in any case involving a white woman. We are at that point with gun rights today.
vickers
NES Member
Bad news, but I say lets lick our wounds and then get back to it! Donate people!!
She'll just claim that they have better "training".
Glockster30
NES Member
What can Glock do?
Perhaps Glock can redesign the LCI so that it is exactly like other "MA Compliant" firearms making the LCI a non-issue. Yes, I know that the MA market is small and Glock will not do it just for MA. However, if other cities/states start pulling similar antics after reading this decision, then it's no longer just a "MA" issue for Glock.
I will gladly give mine up for a 1911. Actually trying to get boss on board with letting carry my TRP for my duty gun. Oh wait, those must be dangerous too because we cant buy them here either.....
Every 2-3 months someone brings this one up- "Why doesn't glock shit on MA LE over this issue?" but it's a horrendously bad idea for a a whole variety of reasons, the first of which is that it wouldn't work the way you think it would. In Barett's case it makes sense because the state actually banned the gun; not to mention it has a powerful memetic effect because "Barett is the one company that makes the thing" (eg, the M82A1, which has no real peer) and they can also easily control distribution of their products... Glock has like a dozen mid level distributors spraying product all over the place. An edict from Glock corporate to "shit on MA LE" would go over like a fart in church on multiple levels, and we'd end up losing in the long run. (there's a variety of things descending from this statement that I'd rather not discuss in public. )
Healy would get excited over it because it means less Glocks in MA total. Lose her job? She's a moonbat in a slot reliably won by moonbats in MA; the only way that broad is not keeping the seat is if she rapes a kid and someone gets it on video. Look at all the garbage Coakley did during her tenure and got away with.
The other problem is "framing" - we will see it one way- Glock shitting on MA LE as an act of defiance against the "state". Everyone else will see it as "There are three people in a room but only two are arguing, one of the parties decides to throw shit at the third party even though they have no real stake in the argument." Barett's defiance was a lot better because of the "ban" status. This isn't a "ban"- just something that makes being an MA gun consumer annoying.
-Mike
Last edited:
Glock redesigned the loaded chamber indicator based on user input and research TO MAKE IT BETTER, SAFER, AND MORE EFFECTIVE, which it is demonstrably to everyone except the MA and "persons of common intelligence" or however the presiding judge put it disparagingly.
![[banghead]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/045.gif "Bang Head [banghead]")
The judge refused exhibits and expert testimony because the facts do not substantiate the ruling as written. The judge could have honestly flatly asserted that the AG has the legislatively anointed power to declare any product unfit for sale arbitrarily, as she is doing, but instead decided to deride the plaintiffs and cover up the arbitrary exercise of the AG's decree.
Mike,
How is it not an issue that Glock is selling what the AG considers a "dangerous" service weapon to 90% of the police departments in the state? Shouldn't Glock be only selling models based on the older generation to LEOs in MA because of this? Doesn't "consumer protection" extend to public entities making purchases? Or is it ok for public entities to, for example, purchase lead glazed coffee mugs and other cancer causing crap from China for their employees endangering them as consumer product protections don't apply to public employees? If an officer or bystander is injured by a negligent discharge, isn't it lawsuit fodder that the department issued what the AG has declared a dangerous product?
Last edited:
Glockster30
NES Member
Glock redesigned the loaded chamber indicator based on user input and research TO MAKE IT BETTER, SAFER, AND MORE EFFECTIVE, which it is demonstrably to everyone except the MA and "persons of common intelligence" or however the presiding judge put it disparagingly.
The judge could have honestly flatly asserted that the AG has the legislatively anointed power to declare any product unfit for sale arbitrarily, as she is doing, but instead decided to deride the plaintiffs and cover up the arbitrary exercise of the AG's decree.
Mike,
How is it not an issue that Glock is selling what the AG considers a "dangerous" service weapon to 90% of the police departments in the state? Shouldn't Glock be only selling models based on the older generation to LEOs in MA because of this? Doesn't "consumer protection" extend to public entities making purchases? Or is it ok for public entities to, for example, purchase lead glazed coffee mugs and other cancer causing crap from China for their employees endangering them as consumer product protections don't apply to public employees?
Apparently, the redesign didn't satisfy the AG or the Courts (and maybe nothing will). I'm not making an argument for redesign or adding something else to make the Glock more like other compliant guns as I believe the current LCI is just fine. However, perhaps Glock can do better than just adding a very workable little nub on the end of the extractor. It's safer in the dark than any peep hole is that is MA compliant. I've stated before how stupid it is for this state to allow pre-1998 Glocks legal for dealers to sell without an LCI, but one with an LCI doesn't meet the AG's criteria. It's obvious that MA .gov believes that as time goes by, the number of pre-98 Glocks will disappear through attrition and age.
OTOH, since necessity is the mother of invention, perhaps Glock will devise something even better and/or something that will complement the existing LCI.
IIRC, the case was made in the suit that if a Glock is safe for police use, then it is safe for non-police users. The AG doesn't care that LEO's are issued and can buy Glocks because the whole issue revolves around BS consumer regulations and the power of .gov. The only way to beat that mentality is to provide LCIs that are similar to those already existing on compliant guns.
Last edited:
Similar threads
