Manufacturers, warranty claims and non-Mass compliant guns...

november14

NES Member
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
392
Likes
126
Location
Maine
Two questions, short and sweet.

1) Is it Glock company policy to not send in non-Mass compliant replacement guns to Mass FFL's for non-LEO customers if there was a warranty or repair claim that dictated a replacement of your gun? (sorry for the run-on sentence there)

2) Anyone else run into this with other manufacturers and warranty claims that needed the replacement of the gun (or lower)?

Just looking to see if this is a legit issue with non-compliant guns.

**Not sure if this would be better on the General discussion thread....if so let me know and I can delete and repost there.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
129
Likes
58
I think if the firearm is legally registered to you in the state, i cant imagine there would be a problem. I think the ffl would just have you sign a paper saying you're taking possession of the item, and a small fee. You don't need to file an fa-10 when sending it for a repair, so it technically is still registered under your name.

Rifles may be a different story. However, in the actual edict itself (which has not been edited since it was released earlier this year) says that registered rifles can be sent out for repair by the manufacturer without penalty, but ffl's might not want to risk that.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
8,420
Likes
1,518
Two questions, short and sweet.

1) Is it Glock company policy to not send in non-Mass compliant replacement guns to Mass FFL's for non-LEO customers if there was a warranty or repair claim that dictated a replacement of your gun? (sorry for the run-on sentence there)

2) Anyone else run into this with other manufacturers and warranty claims that needed the replacement of the gun (or lower)?

Just looking to see if this is a legit issue with non-compliant guns.

**Not sure if this would be better on the General discussion thread....if so let me know and I can delete and repost there.

I think if the firearm is legally registered to you in the state, i cant imagine there would be a problem. I think the ffl would just have you sign a paper saying you're taking possession of the item, and a small fee. You don't need to file an fa-10 when sending it for a repair, so it technically is still registered under your name.

Rifles may be a different story. However, in the actual edict itself (which has not been edited since it was released earlier this year) says that registered rifles can be sent out for repair by the manufacturer without penalty, but ffl's might not want to risk that.

If it's a new serial number, a 4473 and FA10 have to be completed on it if it goes through an FFL.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Messages
38
Likes
9
Two questions, short and sweet.

1) Is it Glock company policy to not send in non-Mass compliant replacement guns to Mass FFL's for non-LEO customers if there was a warranty or repair claim that dictated a replacement of your gun? (sorry for the run-on sentence there)

2) Anyone else run into this with other manufacturers and warranty claims that needed the replacement of the gun (or lower)?

Just looking to see if this is a legit issue with non-compliant guns.

**Not sure if this would be better on the General discussion thread....if so let me know and I can delete and repost there.
I just got my gun back from Glock. I sent them a gen 2 glock with a cracked frame, they sent me back a brand new non-compliant gen 3 frame with a new serial number. It is fair game since it is covered under warranty, but the hardest part was finding an FFL that would do the paperwork for me. A lot of the FFL's that I called didn't want to touch it since it was a glock. Glock provides you with paperwork showing that your old serial number frame was destroyed and that this new serial number frame takes its place. You still need to do a new 4473.
 

1903Collector

NES Member
Rating - 100%
81   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
5,364
Likes
2,804
Location
Armpit region
I thought there was an exemption in fed law for for repair/replacements? the replacement is in the mfgs bound book so there is a record of the transaction, no? They just have to replace it with a "like" firearm.
 

1903Collector

NES Member
Rating - 100%
81   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
5,364
Likes
2,804
Location
Armpit region
Pulled this off another forum, is this correct?


18 USC § 922(a)(2)(A) allows a FFL to return a "replacement firearm of the same kind and type" to a non-licensed person (my emphasis underlined).
Quote:
(a) It shall be unlawful—

(2) for any importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector licensed under the provisions of this chapter to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm to any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, except that—

(A) this paragraph and subsection (b)(3) shall not be held to preclude a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector from returning a firearm or replacement firearm of the same kind and type to a person from whom it was received; and this paragraph shall not be held to preclude an individual from mailing a firearm owned in compliance with Federal, State, and local law to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector...
Per 27 CFR § 478.124(a), no Form 4473 is required when sending a replacement firearm to the same non-licensed person who initially sent in a damaged firearm for "the sole purpose of repair". This allows the replacement to be sent directly to a non-licensed person with no FFL transfer.
Quote:
(a) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not sell or otherwise dispose, temporarily or permanently, of any firearm to any person, other than another licensee, unless the licensee records the transaction on a firearms transaction record, Form 4473: Provided, That a firearms transaction record, Form 4473, shall not be required to record the disposition made of a firearm delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or customizing when such firearm or a replacement firearm is returned to the person from whom received.
IIRC a licensed manufacturer is also allowed to destroy a defective or damaged frame that they originally manufactured, and then manufacture an equivalent new frame with the same serial number as a replacement, but I'm having trouble tracking down the legal citation. Stay tuned.
 
Last edited:

november14

NES Member
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
392
Likes
126
Location
Maine
I think the issue here is that if you are given a replacement gun you have to file a new 4473 and an FA-10. The challenge is in finding an FFL that will take the transfer in for you since its not Mass compliant.

The issue I had a while back was that I sent in my Glock Gen 2 (that I bought new) and it needed the frame replaced, i.e. - new serial.

The tech told me point blank they will not even send in a Gen 3 (which is what I would have gotten as a replacement) into Mass since its not compliant.

Just wondering if that was still the case. Apparently not from a few posts up the thread.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Messages
38
Likes
9
Glock called me and said we will do it once you find an ffl. I did find an ffl to do the paperwork but it took me a few phone calls. It was very worth while
 
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
5,326
Likes
802
Location
Peoples Republik of Massachusetts
So that time I sent my Noveske Lower in to them because something was out of spec, and I got the new lower sent right back to me - it was actually supposed to go to a FFL and a new 4473 done?
Oops. I like how those guys in Oregon do business.
 
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
5,326
Likes
802
Location
Peoples Republik of Massachusetts
The tech told me point blank they will not even send in a Gen 3 (which is what I would have gotten as a replacement) into Mass since its not compliant.

When was this? I recall reading experiences in the past couple/few years that the Mass AGO (though anything is possible now), was tired of being badgered by Glock about this exact issue, Re: frame replacement with a non-compliant frame, and they said enough was enough and said just do it, and issued some guidance somewhere.
I think the new AG AWB guidance even reflects something about this; saying that you can still warranty/replace AWB parts pre 7/20.


I'm not sure where the language is for a Glock frame. I remember seeing it somewhere on NES at one point.
Q: May I return a weapon covered by the Enforcement Notice to a manufacturer after July 20, 2016 for repairs or replacement under warranty or pursuant to a recall? And may the manufacturer return it to me thereafter?

Yes. If you purchased the weapon prior to July 20, 2016, you may return the weapon to the manufacturer, who may then return it to you after it is repaired or replaced.
 

november14

NES Member
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
392
Likes
126
Location
Maine
2012.

I read that some others were refused the same and/or apparently if you can find an FFL that is willing to take it in and transfer it to you.

Maybe its inconsistent depending on who you deal with at Glock?

I would love to read the guidance if its posted somewhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Did it have a new serial? Or did they machine a new lower with your old serial?

So that time I sent my Noveske Lower in to them because something was out of spec, and I got the new lower sent right back to me - it was actually supposed to go to a FFL and a new 4473 done?
Oops. I like how those guys in Oregon do business.
 
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
5,326
Likes
802
Location
Peoples Republik of Massachusetts
Did it have a new serial? Or did they machine a new lower with your old serial?

New serial number. I bought a chainsaw (blem) lower - went to a FFL, did the 4473.
I think the bolt catch holes were out of spec (too big) and the roll pin just slid right through. E-mailed them, they said send it in.. Told me they looked at it, out of spec, sending me a new non-chainsaw lower. Got it in the mail, stuck it in the safe.

I just found the "order details" in my e-mail. So I have dated proof that it was in the state prior to 7/20 (though that's not what we're discussing here, I know). It's listed here as a warranty replacement.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
5,326
Likes
802
Location
Peoples Republik of Massachusetts
(A) this paragraph and subsection (b)(3) shall not be held to preclude a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector from returning a firearm or replacement firearm of the same kind and type to a person from whom it was received; and this paragraph shall not be held to preclude an individual from mailing a firearm owned in compliance with Federal, State, and local law to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector;

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922
18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

That says it's GTG. So I don't think a new 4473 needs to be done? You'd still have to FA-10 it
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,957
Likes
24,620
this paragraph shall not be held to preclude an individual from mailing a firearm owned in compliance with Federal, State, and local law to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector;
Even so, USPS regulations prohibit mailing of handguns except between FFLs in the ordinary course of business and only when a PS form 1508 is on file at the shipping post orifice.
 
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
5,326
Likes
802
Location
Peoples Republik of Massachusetts
Even so, USPS regulations prohibit mailing of handguns except between FFLs in the ordinary course of business and only when a PS form 1508 is on file at the shipping post orifice.

I imagine that's why Glock requires you to Next Day Air to them?
For my AR Lower, it was shipped back to me UPS Ground (signature required).
 
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
8,922
Likes
1,395
Location
in a building
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922
18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

That says it's GTG. So I don't think a new 4473 needs to be done? You'd still have to FA-10 it

A 4473 isn't required by law, but many manufacturers require replacement frames/firearms to go through FFL as a policy matter. I wouldn't be surprised if the ATF pushed them to do that, but I've got no proof of that.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,957
Likes
24,620
I imagine that's why Glock requires you to Next Day Air to them?
For my AR Lower, it was shipped back to me UPS Ground (signature required).
Next day air is a requirement imposed by UPS and FedEx for complete handguns to boost profits while reducing the chances for employee theft. It is not a government requirement.
 
Top Bottom