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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
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.
I thought samples are only submitted for EOPS list approval and that the AG doesn't actively "approve" any firearm.
I thought samples are only submitted for EOPS list approval and that the AG doesn't actively "approve" any firearm.
Well further research says that the AG does testing on 3 guns.
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.(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.
Not until Glock submits 5 samples to the AG for compliance testing with the consumer product safety laws.
Damn, looks like we are still screwed. See #3. We still must have the dreaded loaded chamber indicator, even if there is a safety!!!
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 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.
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?
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?
(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.
They don't like Glock because it's the favored handgun of violent pop culture.
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 don't like Glock because it's the favored handgun of violent pop culture.
holy old thread