New Glock Safety Option

[MichaelJames1971]

Cops can currently buy whatever the hell they want through le exemption. You think all the cops that are profiting from that are gonna go to healey and make a case that us peasents should be able to buy Glocks with no issues? Yes......Cops profit from it........You don't think they go buy a Glock for their own personal use do you? When they can buy 5-10 of em a year and hold em for a few months and sell them at a profit on the inflated market here. Yeah.. ...They ****ing do that!

If this is actually happening, then all-the-more reason to STOP selling to them - cut them off, and tell them why. For guys who get buku overtime dollars to watch tree-trimmers or pothole fillers, they shouldn't be 'fencing' Glocks for pocket-money.

 

[drgrant]

I've read it - and I believe you may have your 'understanding' of what CMR 940 was created-for, and the Attorney General's office has their 'understanding' - those probably differ greatly. Understood, not arguing that. But if we're going to dismantle the Nanny-State, you have to understand why the 'Nanny' feels as though they have a vital job to do....and counter it effectively.

You still don't get it. That's all meaningless garbage . This doesn't have anything to do with cops, or LE exemptions, the AG thinking they have a civic duty, or any of that stuff. CMR940 is a gun control scheme with a "consumer safety" excuse stuck onto it for the sake of appearances. Do you really think the AG actually believes any of that shit? It's basically just designed to piss off gun owners and dealers. You're ignoring the obvious if you don't see this. The regulation is intentionally poorly written to cause as much grief as possible. There's ZERO intent to "protect" anyone written in CMR940.

How do I know this to be true? The people in the MA AGs office have all been hand picked by leftist antis going back to Harshbarger. There's basically a cabal that control the AGs office in mass- they've literally had that seat wired for sound for decades now. I'm sure as I write this Maura Healy's successor is being picked, and you can be sure they will be anti gun, either by choice or by forced grooming. Angus McQuillcken (or his replacements) et al are probably taking this person to dinner once a month or something, to prepare them for anointment. (because thats exactly what the process is in MA in the dems). Basically ever since they passed GCA98 the antis in this state have been emboldened to pull this shit off.

The real, bold faced objective of CMR940 is to act as a deterrent in terms of trying to deter people from becoming licensed and owning or purchasing any firearms in MA. It's pretty obvious when you step back and take a look at it. It's designed to be confusing and intimidating. Many years ago I almost said "**** it, ,it's not worth it" until I analyzed the regulation and figured out that it's all bullshit. That said, if it almost "got" me, how many other hundreds of potential MA gun owners have been scared off? The purpose becomes obvious when you look at it critically.

Also, food for thought... every gun enthusiast LEO (eg, ones likely to buy a gun in MA for off duty use) that I know personally... also knows how to circumvent EOPS/CMR940 BS without having to use their badge to do it.... so the whole thing is kinda redundant. The LE examption is pretty
overrated on this end. The guys that don't know how to do it, aren't going to be the ones "fencing glocks on the side" because they don't even
know what an FA-10 form is, etc.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Yes......Cops profit from it........You don't think they go buy a Glock for their own personal use do you? When they can buy 5-10 of em a year and hold em for a few months and sell them at a profit on the inflated market here. Yeah.. ...They ****ing do that!

Let's not go full retard here... I know with a fair amount of certainty this isn't happening nearly as often as you want to think that it does. I get it, it's NES, everyone wants to blame the kopsch, etc, but that's fantasy land stuff mostly. Most LEOs I know would consider this stuff a waste of time (with a huge amount of liability attached to it for career and otherwise. )

-Mike

 

[whacko]

Let's not go full retard here... I know with a fair amount of certainty this isn't happening nearly as often as you want to think that it does. I get it, it's NES, everyone wants to blame the kopsch, etc, but that's fantasy land stuff mostly. Most LEOs I know would consider this stuff a waste of time (with a huge amount of liability attached to it for career and otherwise. )

-Mike

I know two cops that do it. And I don't know alot of cops.

 

[Glockster30]

I'm not knocking Glock - I own one, love it. There's a European elegance to simplicity and good design, which fed right into the marketing hype that sold it to lots of 'other' folks. I know several Glocks, many Gen 1 guns, that haven't seen 200 rounds down the barrel in their lifetime. My father's hasn't been fired in over a decade. Several haven't left their night-stand resting place in years - you can't argue with me that these folks are "gun people". Glock was THE pistol that was deliberately sold to NON-gun people for its simplicity, reliability, accuracy, dependability, and you didn't have to fuss-with it to make it go BANG when you needed to. Its the gun you have in the desk-drawer and 'forget about' until SHTF, at least it was where I came from. That simplicity means it doesn't have some "stuff" on it that other guns have. Okay....now what?

Cwithe (I think that's the word drgrant would use), I've been carrying a Glock of some type for over two decades, and now I find out I'm not a gun-guy.

 

[drgrant]

I know two cops that do it. And I don't know alot of cops.

How "gun aware" are they, though? If they know what they're doing, they know they don't need a badge to "roll glocks on the side". the only thing the badge gets them is blue label discounts (which glock can sue them for btw, for violating the contract, although its difficult to enforce obviously). Then again that program goes far beyond LEOs, theres a shitload of people who can get blue label pricing that aren't LEOs.

-Mike

 

[whacko]

How "gun aware" are they, though? If they know what they're doing, they know they don't need a badge to "roll glocks on the side". the only thing the badge gets them is blue label discounts (which glock can sue them for btw, for violating the contract, although its difficult to enforce obviously). Then again that program goes far beyond LEOs, theres a shitload of people who can get blue label pricing that aren't LEOs.

-Mike

They don't "need" a badge....But it makes it a hell of alot easier. Right?

 

[rwl1955]

You still don't get it. That's all meaningless garbage . This doesn't have anything to do with cops, or LE exemptions, the AG thinking they have a civic duty, or any of that stuff. CMR940 is a gun control scheme with a "consumer safety" excuse stuck onto it for the sake of appearances. Do you really think the AG actually believes any of that shit? It's basically just designed to piss off gun owners and dealers. You're ignoring the obvious if you don't see this. The regulation is intentionally poorly written to cause as much grief as possible. There's ZERO intent to "protect" anyone written in CMR940.

How do I know this to be true? The people in the MA AGs office have all been hand picked by leftist antis going back to Harshbarger. There's basically a cabal that control the AGs office in mass- they've literally had that seat wired for sound for decades now. I'm sure as I write this Maura Healy's successor is being picked, and you can be sure they will be anti gun, either by choice or by forced grooming. Angus McQuillcken (or his replacements) et al are probably taking this person to dinner once a month or something, to prepare them for anointment. (because thats exactly what the process is in MA in the dems). Basically ever since they passed GCA98 the antis in this state have been emboldened to pull this shit off.

The real, bold faced objective of CMR940 is to act as a deterrent in terms of trying to deter people from becoming licensed and owning or purchasing any firearms in MA. It's pretty obvious when you step back and take a look at it. It's designed to be confusing and intimidating. Many years ago I almost said "**** it, ,it's not worth it" until I analyzed the regulation and figured out that it's all bullshit. That said, if it almost "got" me, how many other hundreds of potential MA gun owners have been scared off? The purpose becomes obvious when you look at it critically.

Also, food for thought... every gun enthusiast LEO (eg, ones likely to buy a gun in MA for off duty use) that I know personally... also knows how to circumvent EOPS/CMR940 BS without having to use their badge to do it.... so the whole thing is kinda redundant. The LE examption is pretty
overrated on this end. The guys that don't know how to do it, aren't going to be the ones "fencing glocks on the side" because they don't even
know what an FA-10 form is, etc.

-Mike

*********
Correct. Since the anti's can't get firearms banned and confiscated they will stack the deck w/political appointees(Trump is finding this out) that share their anti-gun/big govt. agenda. The Obama/Clinton plants in the DC bureaucracy are doing all they can to leak and obstruct the Trump agenda because they can. They're true believers who still are in denial. Federal judges blocking Trump orders have been planted many years ago just for this purpose.

 

[drgrant]

They don't "need" a badge....But it makes it a hell of alot easier. Right?

It makes it slightly more profitable, assuming they can get blue label pricing. I'm not sure what the status of it is at this
point. That said, anyone doing blue label has to fill out special forms to do it with badge, etc.... and IMHO if Glock keeps seeing
submissions from the same guy for the same guns that gravy train isn't going to go on forever before he gets cut off or sued, etc.

-Mike

 

[Glockster30]

They don't "need" a badge....But it makes it a hell of alot easier. Right?

Not necessarily. A whole $hit load of people qualify.

The Blue Label Program is available to the below with approved purchaser ID:

• Sworn Law Enforcement officers, including Federal, State, County & City also includes retired L.E. officers with "retired" credentials (LE Department Picture ID front & back)
• EMT's, Fire Fighters, Volunteer Fire Fighters, and Paramedics (with Picture ID from department front & back) Certifications alone are not authorized and do not qualify
• Military personnel including Reservists and National Guard with I.D also includes retired Military with "retired" credentials (Military picture ID front & back)
  (Excludes Contractors and Civilian Employees)
  DD214/discharge papers do not qualify - If you cannot submit your ID please use our dealer locator to find a dealer in your area
• Corrections Officers, including Parole and Probation Officers (LE Department Picture ID front & back)
• State Licensed Security Companies (Loomis, RAM, etc.) Also includes State Licensed Armed Security Officers Employed by State Licensed Security Companies (with Employment Picture ID from company front & back) Certifications alone are not authorized and do not qualify
• Court Judges.
• LE Academy Cadets with enrollment documentation from the Academy
• GSSF Coupon Recipients should contact GSSF for more information

https://us.glock.com/bluelabel

 

[drgrant]

Not necessarily. A whole $hit load of people qualify.





https://us.glock.com/bluelabel

This, but there's obviously a difference between:

Having a badge to bypass CMR940;
vs
Simply getting blue label pricing (which isn't an MA only thing).

There's a bunch of people listed in the blue label program which would not be able to, on paper, get a free bypass by a dealer on CMR940. (or I should say, more properly, the dealer won't get a free bypass on selling someone like an EMT a non-cmr940 compliant handgun, etc. )

-Mike

 

[bill o]

Glock was THE pistol that was deliberately sold to NON-gun people for its simplicity, reliability, accuracy, dependability, and you didn't have to fuss-with it to make it go BANG when you needed to. Its the gun you have in the desk-drawer and 'forget about' until SHTF, at least it was where I came from.

 

[kingfisher]

Love watching Vogel shoot!

Wasn't someone here selling those in the classifieds recently?

That would be me.

I've been following the development and testing of the "Glock Striker Control Devices" for 6 years. Even though the manufacturer made many more than he thought he'd need, he has sold them all, and he won't have any more in stock for about a month.

Just to rain in your parade a little more it's neither a loaded chamber indicator not a safety. It lets you keep the striker forward so if something gets caught in the trigger guard while bolstering you'll feel it. Of course if you're racing to reholster in the first place you're wrong.

Correct.

Pulling the trigger on a Glock finishes cocking the striker and then releases it. Putting your thumb on the Striker Control Device while holstering will keep the trigger bar and striker from moving. That's all it does and the only time it's used. It doesn't change anything about how you fire the pistol.

I've been "pushing a loaded G17 into my pants" for EDC, training, and competition for many years. I've always felt safe because I was able to do it slowly under controlled conditions; however, if I ever have to shoot someone in self-defense, that won't be a very normal situation during which I can control everything.

I could easily be distracted by friends of the person I just shot—and the police racing into the crime scene, sirens blaring etc. I definitely do not want a gun in my hand when the cops show up, so I may have to re-holster quickly (maybe even without looking at the holster)! I like knowing that I have this extra measure of safety trained into my holstering sequence.

At least two experienced shooters have shot themselves recently at Sig Academy. Here's a thread about one of them: anyone-here, and if they were shooting Glocks, one of these Striker Control Devices could have prevented those self-inflicted injuries.

As much as we'd like to think we are, nobody is perfect all the time.

 

[YZhou4]

in terms of holstering this is one reason I like hammer fired pistols. if this device works reliably on a glock it might be worthwhile. however adding more moving parts to a pistol will never make it more reliable, only less. a glock is such a nearly perfect tool that I am very leery of adding any parts to it, including a safety device.

I have followed the development of "The Gadget" for a long-time, know many of the people that have been using the prototypes for years, and now have them on both of my Glocks. The design does add a moving part, but is also designed so that if the part fails, the gun goes back to functioning like it did before the part was installed. I have heard of no failures with the prototypes in it's many years of testing. It is not a substitute for good, safe, gunhandling, but adds a nice tactile safety mechanism for reholstering. As someone who 95% of the time carries a DA/SA gun with a hammer AIWB, the Gadget is a very useful replacement for the "hammer safety" on my usual carry guns.

 

[92G]

I have followed the development of "The Gadget" for a long-time, know many of the people that have been using the prototypes for years, and now have them on both of my Glocks. The design does add a moving part, but is also designed so that if the part fails, the gun goes back to functioning like it did before the part was installed. I have heard of no failures with the prototypes in it's many years of testing. It is not a substitute for good, safe, gunhandling, but adds a nice tactile safety mechanism for reholstering. As someone who 95% of the time carries a DA/SA gun with a hammer AIWB, the Gadget is a very useful replacement for the "hammer safety" on my usual carry guns.

at some point i intend to try one. it would definitely make me a bit less paranoid with holstering

 

[kingfisher]

I have followed the development of "The Gadget" for a long-time, know many of the people that have been using the prototypes for years, and now have them on both of my Glocks. The design does add a moving part, but is also designed so that if the part fails, the gun goes back to functioning like it did before the part was installed. I have heard of no failures with the prototypes in it's many years of testing. It is not a substitute for good, safe, gunhandling, but adds a nice tactile safety mechanism for reholstering. As someone who 95% of the time carries a DA/SA gun with a hammer AIWB, the Gadget is a very useful replacement for the "hammer safety" on my usual carry guns.

I haven't heard of any failures either during six years of testing—that's now with over 600,000 rounds fired while exposed to everything from Alaskan winters to force-on-force training in sand and mud.

Some individual Gadget-equipped Glocks have discharged over 50,000 failure-free rounds each. I wish everyone in the gun industry tested their products that well!