New Glocks to be illegal in any form under passage of HD.4607 - Will Gen 2 prices go up?

[ddeck]

Who mods the mods?

(And 123, I’m banned…)

Only Zappa can adjudicate dupes!

(From what I've seen).

 

[drgrant]

Are you new here??????

Most do flint on guns. Not sure if it’s I have 10 vs 2 or what.

I swear I just had that conversation in another thread 5-10 minutes ago.

Flinting on a striker fired handgun is a fools errand though. I don't get it. Glocks are cheap. Even most P320s are cheap. HK VP9s etc are slightly more expensive but still cheap in relative terms. Most of the flinting is mind numbing.

Its like face melting. I ask some of these people if they secretly started life as ham operators.

 

[chris_1001]

Flinting on a striker fired handgun is a fools errand though. I don't get it. Glocks are cheap. Even most P320s are cheap. HK VP9s etc are slightly more expensive but still cheap in relative terms. Most of the flinting is mind numbing.

Its like face melting. I ask some of these people if they secretly started life as ham operators.

My buddy is a flint and a ham.

Stereotypes exist for a reason. lol.

 

[drgrant]

My buddy is a flint and a ham.

Stereotypes exist for a reason. lol.

Does he shower tho? He only gets like a 2/3 if he showers on the reg.

 

[chris_1001]

Does he shower tho? He only gets like a 2/3 if he showers on the reg.

Thankfully yes!!!

 

[Nico9283]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t Glocks be on the AG’s “nice” list if they had a manual safety? Personally I hate manual safety’s so I’m not advocating for them.. simply asking if Glock could incorporate them as an option? For example, an sig 365 or p320 is available with OR without a manual safety, so how hard could it be for Glock to implement one?

 

[Knob Creek]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t Glocks be on the approved roster if they had a manual safety? Personally I hate manual safety’s so I’m not advocating for them.. simply asking if Glock could incorporate them as an option? For example, an sig 365 or p320 is available with OR without a manual safety, so how hard could it be for Glock to implement one?

Glocks are on the Approved Roster. It's just the AG who has decided they are not worthy.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/approved-firearms-roster-july-2023/download

 

[Nico9283]

Glocks are on the Approved Roster. It's just the AG who has decided they are not worthy.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/approved-firearms-roster-july-2023/download

My mistake, you’re right.. what I meant to ask is….. didn’t the AG decide they’re not worthy because of the lack of a manual safety?

 

[drgrant]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t Glocks be on the approved roster if they had a manual safety? Personally I hate manual safety’s so I’m not advocating for them.. simply asking if Glock could incorporate them as an option? For example, an sig 365 or p320 is available with OR without a manual safety, so how hard could it be for Glock to implement one?

Not a chance in hell. The MA AGs office has already demonstrated an open conspiracy against Glock and other vendors. Glock is "done" with that bullshit. Glock still puts guns on the roster but there is not a chance in hell that they will ever make another effort to do cmr940 compliance because it's basically a waste of time with the conspiracy in place.

ETA: Also it's kind of clear from your post that you misunderstand the difference between the roster and cmr940 those are two entirely different tiers of compliance that have nothing to do with one another or I should say very little.

Roster = mgl / actual law
Cmr940= cmr / regulation / not criminal law

 

[Knob Creek]

My mistake, you’re right.. what I meant to ask is….. didn’t the AG decide they’re not worthy because of the lack of a manual safety?

I believe it used to be they either had to have a manual safety or an obscene trigger pull. Dgrant is correct there is such a bias against Glocks that goes back to when people got their panties in a wad over a gun that they claimed could evade metal detectors because it was 'plastic'.

 

[Nico9283]

Not a chance in hell. The MA AGs office has already demonstrated an open conspiracy against Glock and other vendors. Glock is "done" with that bullshit. Glock still puts guns on the roster but there is not a chance in hell that they will ever make another effort to do cmr940 compliance because it's basically a waste of time with the conspiracy in place.

hey, I support Glock and stand behind them that’s it’s bullchit. Isn’t that the original reasoning though? Otherwise I don’t understand how the AG office can single out a Glock vs any other semi-automatic browning locked breech platform. They’re all almost identical in how they operate, Glock is just one of the very few that doesn’t have a manual safety model

 

[Rob Boudrie]

My mistake, you’re right.. what I meant to ask is….. didn’t the AG decide they’re not worthy because of the lack of a manual safety?

Loaded chamber indicator.

We appealed this in federal court (Draper and Boudrie v. Healy), but the First Circuit judge Kennedy (yes, that Kennedy of Kelo v. New London) wrote an opinion that was basically "All claims made by AG accepted as fact; all claims by plaintiff rejected based on reading Glock manual; summary judgment for AG".

But, that case was pre-Bruen and based on the effectiveness of the loaded chamber indicator; not if it was constitutional to ban a gun by edict.

Glocks only concession to the MA requirement, other than lab testing, was the addition of a hidden serial number on the frame.

 

[drgrant]

hey, I support Glock and stand behind them that’s it’s bullchit. Isn’t that the original reasoning though? Otherwise I don’t understand how the AG office can single out a Glock vs any other semi-automatic browning locked breech platform. They’re all almost identical in how they operate, Glock is just one of the very few that doesn’t have a manual safety model

Trying to apply logic to cmr940 is likely going to make you want to blow your brains out. There is no legal or purely statutory test for cmr940. Sure there is verbiage in the regulation but the AG's office does not consistently apply that verbiage to every product it "sees".

 

[drgrant]

Loaded chamber indicator.

We appealed this in federal court (Draper and Boudrie v. Healy), but the First Circuit judge Kennedy (yes, that Kennedy of Kelo v. New London) wrote an opinion that was basically "All claims made by AG accepted as fact; all claims by plaintiff rejected based on reading Glock manual; summary judgment for AG".

But, that case was pre-Bruen and based on the effectiveness of the loaded chamber indicator; not if it was constitutional to ban a gun by edict.

Glocks only concession to the MA requirement, other than lab testing, was the addition of a hidden serial number on the frame.

Rob is that requirement for EOPS roster acceptance? that's obviously why they did it if that's the case... there may have been other states that also required it like maybe Maryland?

 

[kerryman71]

I don’t even get the point. NH will be identical to MA pretty soon…

Exactly. And there are actually some of us who, due to work and where we live within the state, can't leave MA as it would be out of a certain mile radius we can live.

I have at least 4 years to go before I can retire, although I may go just a little longer. When I escape, who knows what states will be safe. As it stands now, my refuge is Tennessee. It would be nice to see NH stay free, or even become more free not only in case I don't make that move south, but for the sake of fellow members here and freedom in general.

 

[Nico9283]

Trying to apply logic to cmr940 is likely going to make you want to blow your brains out. There is no legal or purely statutory test for cmr940. Sure there is verbiage in the regulation but the AG's office does not consistently apply that verbiage to every product it "sees".

Which indicates, to me, that there is some back door politics (perhaps pockets that need to be filled) to actually get a firearm approved. Sounds like Glock said “no” to that term, and has since been conspired against. Can’t be a part of the machine if you ain’t helping to grease the cogs.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob is that requirement for EOPS roster acceptance? that's obviously why they did it if that's the case... there may have been other states that also required it like maybe Maryland?

I think it's for the roster, not sure. Also not aware of any other states with such a requirement.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Trying to apply logic to cmr940 is likely going to make you want to blow your brains out. There is no legal or purely statutory test for cmr940. Sure there is verbiage in the regulation but the AG's office does not consistently apply that verbiage to every product it "sees".

There is also no procedure other than "Hire you own legal counsel to advise you" to get the AGs office to state its position on a particular gun.

 

[Reptile]

Loaded chamber indicator.

We appealed this in federal court (Draper and Boudrie v. Healy), but the First Circuit judge Kennedy (yes, that Kennedy of Kelo v. New London) wrote an opinion that was basically "All claims made by AG accepted as fact; all claims by plaintiff rejected based on reading Glock manual; summary judgment for AG".

But, that case was pre-Bruen and based on the effectiveness of the loaded chamber indicator; not if it was constitutional to ban a gun by edict.

Glocks only concession to the MA requirement, other than lab testing, was the addition of a hidden serial number on the frame.

The 22 caliber Glock 44 has a loaded chamber indicator. It has a hole cut into the barrel so you can see if loaded.

Is that legal?

 

[drgrant]

Which indicates, to me, that there is some back door politics (perhaps pockets that need to be filled) to actually get a firearm approved. Sounds like Glock said “no” to that term, and has since been conspired against. Can’t be a part of the machine if you ain’t helping to grease the cogs.

Nah this isn't a greasing thing. There are a bunch of irrelevant guns that are basically allowed via CMR 940 for a long time this is some kind of weird deep-seated conspiracy that the AG's office has against Glock and it's actually persisted through multiple attorney generals some of it might stem by virtue of the fact that the Glock attorneys/counsel likely don't put up with any bullshit from anybody.

It's also worth noting that they gave the same kind of grief to Smith and Wesson when the M&P was introduced there were a bunch of vendors that found the version with the safety and started to sell it but they got told to stop by the Attorney General's office because it wasn't cmr940 compliant despite the manual safety Smith bent over put the 900 lb trigger in the gun and continued to sell it at that point without being bothered but it's pretty obvious the AG's office doesn't like certain manufacturers of Striker Fired handguns.

 

[drgrant]

There is also no procedure other than "Hire you own legal counsel to advise you" to get the AGs office to state its position on a particular gun.

Look at the way the manufacturers have responded to cmr940 compliance it's abundantly clear that their attorneys are basically just "making a best guess" and they're shooting from the hip so to speak because they all do it differently. Some manufacturers basically do nothing and then others seem to prostrate themselves in unusual ways.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The 22 caliber Glock 44 has a loaded chamber indicator. It has a hole cut into the barrel so you can see if loaded.

Is that legal?

It is if the gun is not manufactured by Glock. Not sure about the Glocks - the AG could just say "Nope" and dealers would stop selling them.