Mass Legal Glocks: New Gen 4 to have safety

[Reptile]

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=949339

Page 11 of this thread about the 4th edition Glock mentions a "Cross-bolt safety". Would this make it Mass Legal?

To-do: call Glock in the morning.

 

[MACGYVR]

Not until Glock submits 5 samples to the AG for compliance testing with the consumer product safety laws.

 

[vellnueve]

I thought samples are only submitted for EOPS list approval and that the AG doesn't actively "approve" any firearm.

 

[terraformer]

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=949339

Page 11 of this thread about the 4th edition Glock mentions a "Cross-bolt safety". Would this make it Mass Legal?

To-do: call Glock in the morning.

The issue as I understand it was the "chambered round indicator" was at issue (not clear enough) with the AG's office and glock busted an artery over the fact they just introduced glock sales into MA, with all of the cost, to have these f'ups threaten them after the fact.

 

[MACGYVR]

Its blurry in this area.

EOPS has its test done by an independant lab.

The AG though has its own list based on the consumer safety law.

I might have mispoken when I said AG. I should have said the state of Mass.

I don't know how a state can have 2 authorites say two different things and contradict their own laws. ie a gun on the EOPS list approved for sale in mass but since it doesnt pass the AG list it can't be sold. all I have to say is WTF

There is a good chance though that mass will get these Glocks since they went through the process before. Might take a year though based on how fast mass moves paperwork.

 

[MACGYVR]

Well further research says that the AG does testing on 3 guns.

Make and Model Performance Requirements: shall mean a test in which three handguns in new condition of the make and model being tested shall each pass the Handgun Performance Test.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagoterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Government&L2=AG's+Regulations&sid=Cago&b=terminalcontent&f=government_Regulations_940CMR16&csid=Cago

The definitions mean say more than the actual regs.

Handgun: shall mean a weapon, designed to be fired by the use of a single hand, from which may be fired or ejected one or more solid projectiles propelled via a chemical ignition, and which has:

(a) a smooth bore with a barrel less than 18 inches long;

(b) a smooth bore and an overall weapon length of less than 26 inches; or

(c) a rifled bore with a barrel less than 16 inches.

Handgun Drop Test: shall mean a test in which the handgun in question shall be:

(a) test loaded;

(b) set such that the handgun is ready to fire; and

(c) dropped onto a solid slab of concrete from a height of one meter from each of the following positions:

1. normal firing position,

2. upside down,

3. on grip,

4. on the muzzle,

5. on either side, and

6. on the exposed hammer or striker (or if there is no exposed hammer or striker, then the rearmost part of the firearm).

In addition, if the handgun is designed so that its hammer or striker may be set in other positions, the handgun in question shall be tested with the hammer or striker in each such position (but otherwise ready to fire). Alternatively, the tester may use different handguns of the same make and model, in similar condition, for the test of each of these hammer/striker settings.

Handgun Performance Test: shall mean a test in which the handgun in question shall fire 600 rounds, stopping every 100 rounds to tighten any loose screws and to clean the gun (if required by the cleaning schedule in the user manual), and as needed to refill the empty magazine or cylinder to capacity before continuing. For any handgun that loads other than via a detachable magazine, the tester shall also pause every 50 rounds for ten minutes. The ammunition used shall be the type recommended by the handgun manufacturer in its user manual, or if none is recommended, any standard ammunition of the correct caliber in new condition. A handgun shall pass this test if it:

(a) fires the first 20 rounds without a malfunction, and

(b) fires the full 600 rounds with no more than six malfunctions and without any crack or breakage of an operating part of the handgun which increases the danger of injury to the user.

 

[terraformer]

I thought samples are only submitted for EOPS list approval and that the AG doesn't actively "approve" any firearm.

That's right. The 5 samples are for EOPS. The AG just f s you over after you start selling your product because they can't be bothered to come up with standards, so you just catch hell when one of them has a bad day or doesn't think your product fit's their idea of what it should.

Every time I think of the AG BS I think about an IEA meeting I was at last year. The Europeans and the Australians couldn't figure out a way to deal with STBs (cable, satellite, DVRs, etc) energy consumption and how to judge who was doing it better than others. So they set out this framework
(http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/2007/set-top/day2/armishaw_harrison_jones.pdf) for auditing and "judging" who is using less energy using this subjective auditing process. Two hours later I had my turn and previewed this (http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=revisions.settop_box_spec).

Subjective tests and amorphous and constantly changing standards are the answer that people who can't understand the problem come up with in order to make themselves look like they are doing something to solve it.

 

[Reptile]

Damn, looks like we are still screwed. See #3. We still must have the dreaded loaded chamber indicator, even if there is a safety!!!

Somebody needs to sue the AG!!! This is BS!!!


16.05: Sale of Handguns Without Childproofing
(1) It shall be an unfair or deceptive practice to sell a handgun without a safety device in violation of M.G.L. c. 140, § 131K.
(2) It shall be an unfair or deceptive practice for a handgun-purveyor to transfer or offer to transfer to any customer located within the Commonwealth any handgun which does not contain a mechanism which effectively precludes an average five year old child from operating the handgun when it is ready to fire; such mechanisms shall include, but are not limited to: raising trigger resistance to at least a ten pound pull, altering the firing mechanism so that an average five year old child's hands are too small to operate the handgun, or requiring a series of multiple motions in order to fire the handgun.
(3) It shall be an unfair or deceptive practice for a handgun-purveyor to transfer or offer to transfer to any customer located within the Commonwealth any handgun which does not contain a load indicator or magazine safety disconnect.
(4) 940 CMR 16.05(2) shall not apply to handguns which have a hammer deactivation device. 940 CMR 16.05(3) applies only to handguns that have a mechanism to load cartridges via a magazine.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I thought samples are only submitted for EOPS list approval and that the AG doesn't actively "approve" any firearm.

It is my understanding that you are correct.

Samples are tested by one of five (IIRC) independent testing labs approved by EOPS. Results reviewed by GCAB and recommendations for approval sent to Sec. of Public Safety for approval and inclusion on the next EOPS List.

AG does not test or approve any guns. The regs say that the AG will release a list, other regs say that the AG will release a list annually of states with licensing reciprocity with MA. These are both "null lists" and have never been created and likely never will be.

It's my understanding that the mfr submits a letter attesting to compliance with the AG Regs to the AG's office and until the AG bitches about it, they then start selling guns in MA. Likely they also send backup doc to the AG (results of the lab tests, etc.) but of that I am not certain.

The actual process in gov't oftentimes works very differently than the law/regs state. After all, who's going to prosecute them for not following the law/regs??

 

[terraformer]

Well further research says that the AG does testing on 3 guns.

It is not the AG. They never see the handgun until after it goes on sale. They don't do objective testing. The AG CMRs are self certifying until the AG says they don't like it.

(3) 940 CMR 16.04(1) shall not apply to any make and model of handgun which satisfies the Make and Model Performance Requirements. The Attorney General may require that the handgun-purveyor, or the entity testing the make and model in question on behalf of the handgun-purveyor, provide a sworn certification verifying that the make and model met the performance requirements. At the Attorney General's discretion, he may, upon 60 days notice, require that any such test be performed again by an independent testing entity chosen by the Attorney General, upon three test guns of the make and model purchased at retail. In such a case, the prior certification shall be prospectively invalid at the conclusion of the notice period and the make and model in question may henceforth only meet the Make and Model Performance Requirements by obtaining a certification from the independent tester. A handgun-purveyor may resubmit a make and model to the independent tester for testing an unlimited number of times.

This is the part about the metal quality, but the basics apply to all of the tests. The OEM say, "yes, we meet these reqs" and the AG either does nothing or sends them a nasty gram threatening legal action. No objective tests prior to sales on much of the CMR.

 

[drgrant]

Not until Glock submits 5 samples to the AG for compliance testing with the consumer product safety laws.

The AG does not take in pistols for "testing". The only "testing" required is to get it on the EOPS approved handgun roster.

The AG's regulations involve a subjective "test", not one that involves real metrics. There is no "AG certification" for pistols in MA.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Damn, looks like we are still screwed. See #3. We still must have the dreaded loaded chamber indicator, even if there is a safety!!!

Glocks have had an LCI for awhile. Problem is at least under Reilly this LCI was "not good enough" for them, or some crap.

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

Damn, looks like we are still screwed. See #3. We still must have the dreaded loaded chamber indicator, even if there is a safety!!!

Somebody needs to sue the AG!!! This is BS!!!

There is an indicator on the side of every 3rd gen glock (http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_adv09.htm) but it is not "clear" enough for the AG. Well, I am not sure what her f'n problem is but she apparently has one with glock's indicator.

And someone did sue and they were winning, but because of stupidity, they missed a court deadline and now we all pay for it. http://www.goal.org/news/agfraud/fraudhome.html

 

[Reptile]

So if you MUST have a 10lb trigger, a loaded chamber indicator, and safety the Gen 4 Glock is not compliant?

The M&P does not even have a safety. So why should the Glock have a loaded chamber indicator? Is there a level of importance in the features?

 

[drgrant]

There is a good chance though that mass will get these Glocks since they went through the process before. Might take a year though based on how fast mass moves paperwork.

If Glock gets these 4th gen guns on the roster (assuming they're "substantially different" enough to require a retest, which they probably do, the best you're going to see is some of them on the secondary market dribbled out by LEOs that buy them and then roll them over, and maybe a few here and there from dealer rugsweep jobs, etc. I doubt these guns will ever be "formally" compliant for joe consumer in MA, unless Coakley decides to allow Glock some leeway. It's readily apparent to me that the MA AG's office does not like Glock for whatever reason.

-Mike

 

[Eta-Carinae]

doubtful

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=949339

Page 11 of this thread about the 4th edition Glock mentions a "Cross-bolt safety". Would this make it Mass Legal?

Doubtful. The consumer safety regulation from the AG wants a magazine disconnect safety or a loaded chamber indicator. They want something to protect children (it's for the children, after all) who don't know how to operate a gun who have been taught by bad television that a gun that has had its magazine removed is unable to fire.

Glock tried to get by with the exposed extractor for the 3rd gen, but that didn't fly.

 

[Eta-Carinae]

That would pass California's requirement for a positive manual safety or a magazine disconnect safety, but not Massachusetts' requirement for a magazine disconnect safety or loaded chamber indicator.

Correction. Apparently in 2007 California upped it to requiring magazine disconnect safety and loaded chamber indicator. for new weapons submitted to the California approved handguns roster. This probably won't fly in California either.

 

[vellnueve]

They don't like Glock because it's the favored handgun of violent pop culture.

 

[M1911]

So if you MUST have a 10lb trigger, a loaded chamber indicator, and safety the Gen 4 Glock is not compliant?

The M&P does not even have a safety. So why should the Glock have a loaded chamber indicator? Is there a level of importance in the features?

Folks, please read the AG's regulations: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagoter...t&f=government_Regulations_940CMR16&csid=Cago

The requirement at issue is for either 1) a loaded chamber indicator or 2) a magazine safety disconnect. See 940 CMR 16.05 (3):

(3) It shall be an unfair or deceptive practice for a handgun-purveyor to transfer or offer to transfer to any customer located within the Commonwealth any handgun which does not contain a load indicator or magazine safety disconnect.

IIRC, the M&P loaded chamber indicator is a hole at the back of the barrel hood. The Glock loaded chamber indicator is the external extractor. The AG apparently doesn't like the Glock's loaded chamber indicator.

 

[Rob]

They don't like Glock because it's the favored handgun of violent pop culture.

...and police departments. We all know how special and super duper all powerful cops' guns are. We wouldn't want those to fall into the wrong hands.

 

[Timberwolf]

When I took the Armourers Course in November, I got to handle the only one in the US. It's a great grip without any slipping.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Personally I think that there is "bad blood" on both sides of this equation and thus both sides have "dug in" with a "screw you" position.

I don't see either side moving to get/give the OK to sell to the great unwashed masses in MA.

 

[Ripach]

If the LCI is the issue, it's a shame Glock just isn't willing to drill a ma**h*** at the back of the chamber. They would clean up in the first few weeks after compliance. These guns have been taboo for so long here that people just have to have one, IMHO just about every gunny with a few bucks to his name would be buying a new one just because they could. Of course after that initial surge, sales would most likely level out to even with the rest of free America.

 

[drgrant]

If the LCI is the issue, it's a shame Glock just isn't willing to drill a ma**h*** at the back of the chamber.

I doubt this is really the issue. There are many othe "compliant" guns that have a marginal LCI, so why are they compliant and the Glock pistols are not? It's readily apparent to me that the AG's office dislikes Glock firearms, there can't really be any other explanation. The bias against them is pretty obvious.

-Mike

 

[Reptile]

UPDATE

I just talked to the Glock legal department.

They said that the new "textured grip" Glock (as we call the 4th Gen) will NOT have a safety.

I guess that puts it to rest anf Glocktalk is full of caca del toro.

 

[Carcharodon]

They don't like Glock because it's the favored handgun of violent pop culture.

They should have picked a name that's harder to rhyme

 

[LT1MCSS]

holy old thread

 

[MassMark]

holy old thread

Yee haw...How about it... I was going to chime in with:

"You sure that's a safety and not a pull-ring?", but then I saw the date....Damn!

 

[appraiser]

yep old thread, but a few minutes ago I read a new thread from today about a new fourth gen G22 with grip inserts (trying to copy the M&P?) that is supposedly a 2010 release, but you can forget about it being MA legal.

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

I just started a thread linking to the (very limited) info about the 4th gen on glocktalk.