Les Baer in CA but not MA

Mike1911

Mike1911

Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
2,573
Likes
294
Location
North of Boston, MA
Feedback: 45 / 0 / 0
I see that some Les Baer 45's can be sold in Calif. but not any in MA. Calif. gun laws are worse then MA laws but LB is making them special. Anyone know what he deal is? BTW I bought my Les Baer back in the mid/late '90's and would love to have another.
 
"Calif. gun laws are worse then [sic] MA laws but LB is making them special. Anyone know what [t]he deal is?"

Yes. Les Baer thinks he can sell enough guns in CA to justify the extreme cost of testing and certifying the guns EACH YEAR, but can't be bothered to do so in MA. Note that he could use much of his CA certification to meet the MA standards AND that MA certification is a one-time cost.

Yet another reason to buy an SVI! [wink]
 
NOT SO SIMPLE!!

Most mfrs have written off MA simply because of the AG's "gotcha game"!

The marginal cost of testing to meet MA requirements vs. CA only isn't worth talking about.

Having spoken with some folks "in the know" at mfrs, since they can't get a straight answer out of the AG as to what he'll approve (he will NOT approve anything), they don't want to have to pay lawyers to fight with the MA AG!

That is why they write off MA.

Look thru the EOPS List and count the handgun mfrs names, they almost fit on one hand for MA. Yet damn near everyone is getting CA certified and they have to pay an "annual maintenance fee" to CA where MA is a one-shot deal/model/variation. Don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out!
 
Pilgrim said:
Someone's just not paying off the right people, that's all it is. It's politics you know.
Click to expand...

You are so dead on. If Les Baer wrote out a check for 20K to the Reilly fund those firearms would all of a sudden make the grade.
 
“Having spoken with some folks ‘in the know’ at mfrs, since they can't get a straight answer out of the AG as to what he'll approve (he will NOT approve anything), they don't want to have to pay lawyers to fight with the MA AG!

That is why they write off MA.”

Puhleeeeze. What a pathetic excuse. Materials standards have NOTHING to do with the AG; they are specified by statute: M.G.L.c. 140, § 123. So is the testing procedure. This is the Mass. equivalent of the Calif. products /consumer safety requirements. Having actually gotten one manufacturer so certified - the FIRST 1911 to be so approved, contrary to what the staff at a certain calendar-themed shop used to state - I have actual first-hand knowledge of this subject.

“Look thru [sic] the EOPS List [i.e., the AFR] and count the handgun mfrs names, they almost fit on one hand for MA.”

Get real. The AFR lists thirteen (13) different makers and eleven (11) pages of approved handguns. While many of those are S&W, Para and Ruger, even Armscor managed to do it. What’s Baer’s excuse - besides utter lack of interest?

Note also that what the AG further requires - loaded chamber indicators or mag safety, etc. - has been easily achieved simply by slotting the barrel hood. Hardly an overwhelming technical impediment.

“Someone's just not paying off the right people, that's all it is. It's politics you know.”

Someone’s looking for a convenient excuse to rationalize manufacturers writing off Mass. shooters. And using a false, trite, even worn-out, excuse at that.

“You are so dead on. If Les Baer wrote out a check for 20K to the Reilly fund those firearms would all of a sudden make the grade.”

Someone else with little, if any, knowledge of the actual process. Go read the statute before pontificating on the procedure. “Approved Firearms Roster shall mean a list of firearms which meet or exceed the testing criteria as outlined in M.G.L.c. 140, § 123" Note that it would cost less than your bribe to get any given model certified by the lab and that the AG has NOTHING to do with the GCAB listing a gun as approved.

I have no use for Reilly or his predecessor, but specious rants add nothing to the discourse. [roll]
 
Scrivener said:
Someone else with little, if any, knowledge of the actual process. Go read the statute before pontificating on the procedure. “Approved Firearms Roster shall mean a list of firearms which meet or exceed the testing criteria as outlined in M.G.L.c. 140, § 123" Note that it would cost less than your bribe to get any given model certified by the lab and that the AG has NOTHING to do with the GCAB listing a gun as approved.

I have no use for Reilly or his predecessor, but specious rants add nothing to the discourse. [roll]
Click to expand...

That's not what the rep at H&K told me. [roll]
 
Scrivener, I think you know damn well what I'm referring to . . . we have plowed this ground a number of times before.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TESTING OR MEETING WRITTEN STANDARDS!

It has everything to do with the AG's holier than thou refusal to actually approve what a mfr has done to meet HIS requirements.

Don't believe me? Ask Glock!

The AG forces each mfr to self-certify . . . and then if he disagrees, he sends letters threatening fines and lawsuits!

I'll get specific: I spoke with folks at Glock very recently (last month). I have spoken with the National Sales Manager of Taurus a few years ago. He told me that he sent a team of attorneys to meet with the AG's staff, when they could not get a commitment that the AG would approve anything and work with them to meet his requirements but instead would play "gotcha" with fines and lawsuits, Taurus decided that the risk wasn't worth the potential reward and thus REFUSES TO DO ANY BUSINESS IN MA! He told me that they wouldn't even approve any order for Law Enforcement if they knew that the guns destination was MA (and LE guns are exempt from the AG Regs).

Decisions like this made by a few mfrs, spreads like wildfire and makes many others decide not to bother either. Same thing happened with the AG stings of a handful of Internet dealers selling ammo, knives, OC, etc. into MA! A few got stung, word got around and most places won't ship ANY mags, boresighters, even C&R rifle stocks into MA! [The IRS uses audits the same way to scare people "straight"!]
 
"That's not what the rep at H&K told me."

And how many certifications has he filed?

As for Glock; how is it that Ruger, Para and even Armscor, for Gawd's sake, can get squared away, but Glock - or Taurus - can't? [roll]

Then again, IF the GOAL bill now pending is enacted, the "formal target shooting" exception will permit many new models to be sold. Have you contacted YOUR legislators yet?
 
Scrivener said:
"That's not what the rep at H&K told me."

And how many certifications has he filed?

As for Glock; how is it that Ruger, Para and even Armscor, for Gawd's sake, can get squared away, but Glock - or Taurus - can't? [roll]
Click to expand...
Because.....Ruger, Para and Armscor want to play the AG's game, and Glock doesn't want to??!? I want Beretta to get more guns on the list, but they can't be bothered. Kimber? Same deal. There are more. Some manufacturers just don't want to play games - if the AG were playing it straight it wouldn't be a problem.
 
Scrivener said:
"That's not what the rep at H&K told me."

And how many certifications has he filed?
Click to expand...

You're right Scrivener the guys at H&K are probably complete morons. They probably wrote off MA with out any type of development, production, or market analysis.
 
"You're right Scrivener the guys at H&K are probably complete morons. They probably wrote of [sic] MA with out any type of development, production, or market analysis."

More likely the rep needed an excuse for H&K's inertia or its actual decision not to pursue certification based upon the projected market. Production and development don't really figure into such a decision.
 
Scrivener said:
"You're right Scrivener the guys at H&K are probably complete morons. They probably wrote of [sic] MA with out any type of development, production, or market analysis."

More likely the rep needed an excuse for H&K's inertia or its actual decision not to pursue certification based upon the projected market. Production and development don't really figure into such a decision.
Click to expand...

Considering gun ownership in this state has gone down almost 90% since 1997 it probably isn't worth the hassle of making specific MA compliant weapons. Which if they can't sell in MA they probably would take a loss on selling them in other states. Can you imagine the sales add in the Alabama news paper...

H&K Year end Mass Compliant Blow out
10 round mags max
A hole in the top of each barrel
A nice lofty 10 lb trigger pull

And if it's a future add....

A nice GPS transmitter in every handle.
Click to expand...
 
Scrivener,

Let me paint a picture for you from my own past experiences.

I do not like people who "play games"!

- We signed a P & S on a house in CT way back in 1972. It was MLS, so 2 real estate agents were involved. We all (both agents, sellers and buyers) sat around the kitchen table and hashed out a whole bunch of ridiculous Ts & Cs (they wanted to take a tree that they had planted, the TV antenna, ALL appliances, etc.). I had my lawyer draw it all up as agreed upon, signed it, paid the earnest money and handed it off to the sellers for their attorney to look over.

- The owner of the listing agency has the gall to call my attorney and chew her out for writing such a contract. The buyer suddenly wants to hold the earnest money (instead of real estate agency), they want a larger sum for the earnest money within 1 business day, etc. To put it bluntly they were playing games.

- I got the contract back, locked it in a secure facility (work - with all our Secret classified manuals on the nuclear subs) and called the listing agent to jerk his chain. Then called my agent and canceled the deal. I refused to deal with people who were playing games!

If I were a decision maker in a large company, after meeting with our AG, I would make the decision to do business ELSEWHERE but not here!

Simple and sensible business decision!

That is what folks like H&K, Taurus, Les Baer, etc. are doing and I really can't blame them.
 
Scrivener,

Let me paint a picture for you, as well. I respect, and welcome, your knowledge to this forum. However, stop acting like a spoiled 3rd grader and maintain your posts in a polite and respectful manner. Or, were you [sic] (meaning absent) the day they taught professionalism in law school?

In summary counselor, do not act an ass and do not pontificate your arrogance on this forum.

Is there any point in which I am not clear?
 
yeah, sometimes Scrivener doesn't come off all that politely, but everyone else has to ask themselves, do they have any 1st hand experience in actually getting the guns approved as he does? or are they just complaining about what a manufacturers rep has told them, maybe 3rd hand from the guy who actually made the decision, and bashing the guy who actually knows what needs to be done for their favorite company's unwillingness to jump through the stupid hoops erected by our future oppressor, i mean, governor.
I'm still impressed at SVI's commitment to the few shooters left in MA, to get some of their guns approved for us here, as I doubt the cost has been recouped.

I wish a few companies would band together and challenge these laws on an unconstitutional basis as a violation of the commerce clause.
I don't know if it's been tried yet, I don't think so, and I don't think it's to late.
 
38supermatt said:
yeah, sometimes Scrivener doesn't come off all that politely, but everyone else has to ask themselves, do they have any 1st hand experience in actually getting the guns approved as he does? or are they just complaining about what a manufacturers rep has told them, maybe 3rd hand from the guy who actually made the decision, and bashing the guy who actually knows what needs to be done for their favorite company's unwillingness to jump through the stupid hoops erected by our future oppressor, i mean, governor.
I'm still impressed at SVI's commitment to the few shooters left in MA, to get some of their guns approved for us here, as I doubt the cost has been recouped.

I wish a few companies would band together and challenge these laws on an unconstitutional basis as a violation of the commerce clause.
I don't know if it's been tried yet, I don't think so, and I don't think it's to late.
Click to expand...

Does he have any first hand experience getting guns approved? If he does, great. That has nothing to do with being disrespectful on this forum. It is the disrepect for other posters that I will not tolerate, regardless of time in grade or self-appointed elitism.
 
pop2.gif
 
edin508 said:
pop2.gif
Click to expand...

"JERRY, JERRY, JERRY!". <G>

That being said, it seems to me that it's a lot like the insurance industry in MA. There are very few companies that will write insurance here. There's not enough money (I know, I find that hard to believe) on auto insurance to make it worth while. MA regulations require insurance companies to offer all types of insurance, so the companies can't just sell home owners. Therefore, they choose not to sell any.

With gun manufacturers, it's a small market which requires specific modificaitons to their product, which cost them a fair amount of money. Glock has no problem selling to LE because they don't have to make any modifications. Some of the other companies no doubt feel the same way.

The only way any of this is going to change is if the laws are changed.

Gary
 
Tony...I must profess some disappointment with your handling of Scrivner. As the consummate military professional/para-military professional, there must have been some point in your training where you took some leadership courses. The first rule that I ever learned was one praises in public and reprimands in private.

We probably don't agree on much, and I sense that I probably would never make your "A" party list, but I have always respected your training and background and your considerable body of knowledge. One would might be wise to remember the quote attributed to Lord Acton: "Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

Anger is a luxury that few in charge have the perogative to exercise.

With regard to the basic issue at hand, I know in talking with one manufacturers rep (not HK and not Baer) that the main reason according to him, that companies will conform to CA standards is primarily due to numbers. 35 million people in CA, and 6 million in Mass. Potentially there is a larger market, so rather than jump through hoops for AG Riley, it is just not worth the effort. It is sort of an application of the law of diminishing return.

You might want to consider your own statement regarding self-appointed elitism.

Respectfully,

Mark
 
Baer

I like Scriviner have a close working relationship with the SVI factory. These guns would not be on the MA list if either of us had not been in the loop on that project. It doesn't matter how well you know the president of a small gun factory - you're still going to raise eyebrows if you call up and say "I need a favor .... could you build ten guns and pay someone to drop them on concerte?"

That being said, I have a question for the moderator. Is it impolite to post the results of a chemical, structural and photo micographic analysis of a failed Les Baer frame even if the results are, shall we say, less than flattering?
 
mark056 said:
Tony...I must profess some disappointment with your handling of Scrivner. As the consummate military professional/para-military professional, there must have been some point in your training where you took some leadership courses. The first rule that I ever learned was one praises in public and reprimands in private.

We probably don't agree on much, and I sense that I probably would never make your "A" party list, but I have always respected your training and background and your considerable body of knowledge. One would might be wise to remember the quote attributed to Lord Acton: "Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

Anger is a luxury that few in charge have the perogative to exercise.


You might want to consider your own statement regarding self-appointed elitism.

Respectfully,

Mark
Click to expand...

Mark,

You are well within your rights to express disappointment with my handling of the post in question. You are also correct that in all of the leadership courses I have attended, and taught, that the first course is to always admonish in private and acclaim in public.

And, to the contary, there are several points in which we do agree, and, others in which we do not. Me not being on your "A" list is also a disappointment because I assure you you would be on mine. I always welcome differing views regardless of how skewed they may be.

As to your others assertions, first, my reply was not in anger, and, since I have no semblance of absolute power there can be no absolute corruption, can there?

It is also apparent that you have no clue as to the number of times the individual in question has been warned to be respectful on this board through private communique. In which, it is obvious, that he has paid no heed. I ask you, sir, how long would you allow an individual to be disrespectful to 600 plus members if you owned and paid for this forum?

As I stated previously, we treasure all memebers here with all of their unique experiences and knowledge. We will not, however, condone rude, unruly and disrespectful behavior from anyone, regardless of their self-imposed elitism.

We may carry on this conversation in any way that you see fit. However, since you've already broken your own rule of admonishing in public, as you stated I should not have done, in public would be fine with me.
 
Rob,

If someone from the affected company were to take "objection", legal action could ensue against you, Derek and perhaps others. Thus, I think it not wise to post anyone's failure data here.

Even the best companies have had product failures. I ran a test lab at the late DEC. Not everything passed the first time, some tests resulted in redesign of product, product recalls, etc.

Such is life and it does not necessarily condemn the company at all . . . not as long as they accept responsibility when a problem is found and then fix the problem.
 
Tony,

Thank you for your reply. If you would kindly re-read one sentence, I said that I probably wouldn't make YOUR "A" party list. I said nothing about mine :)

You are correct that I am guilty of the very thing that I accuse you of. I knew that when I posted it, but I ain't in charge being a merely a Forum maggot (with one stripe !).

Your post struck me as a tad angry and like shooting from the hip. If you say you weren't, then I'll buy that. Like it says on the sticky we have no facial expressions, tones or body language with which to judge the written word.

I didn't think Scrivner was all that rude, frankly. I perceive his style as no BS, cut to the chase and a tad sarcastic. From a group that eschews itself from not being kinder or gentler, I was a little surprised. From my perspective he is another pessimist like me who sees the world through a glass darkly (that glass is half-empty by the way)

Anyway,again, thank you for your reply.

Mark
 
Back
Top Bottom