Who would like to see glock sell in Mass?

[cekim]

It's being perpetuated by these crazy rules that drastically limit supply, and therefore drive prices up.

Economics seems to be a lost science these days[sad2]

To echo what others have said, so long as Glock has a deep order backlog, there is no reason to pay one extra cent of transaction/development/sales cost to get into the MA market...

Even if they haven't "given up", it doesn't make sense to pay to sell guns you cannot deliver...

 

[Len-2A Training]

The problem is that the legislators have NO INFLUENCE on the AG. The AG is elected and independent of the legislative process.

The Glock Rep that I've met (LB) is a real nice guy and very knowledgeable, but much too low on the food chain wrt the decision-making at a corporate level.

 

[Ish]

Sorry to say, but let’s not talk about prices or specifications. Prices have nothing to do with getting a Glock or not. Put it this way, the price of a Glock changes from state to state and from country to country as well as does the cars, houses, tobacco, etc. About the modifications, there is no way in hell that Glock will do modifications on their style just to sell them in MA.

Maybe some of you are right when you guys say that they will be selling 1,000’s on the 1st month, but Glock couldn’t care less about that, if they compare the profit with the losses in style, etc. Glock has been selling their handguns forever over in Europe, Israel, as well that for 8 years here in the USA to Immigration officers.

Will Ferrari change their engines in order to sell more cars? The answer is no. Same thing happens with Glock.

I have Glocks since 1997 and they didn’t changes a bit. Believe me they won’t change.

My question to you is: Is it allowed to buy Glocks out of MA and have them in MA? If so, which I have no idea even if it is possible, Why don’t buy them out of the State?

Ish.

 

[cekim]

The problem is that the legislators have NO INFLUENCE on the AG. The AG is elected and independent of the legislative process

And the AG appears to be elected independent of electoral process

 

[cekim]

My question to you is: Is it allowed to buy Glocks out of MA and have them in MA? If so, which I have no idea even if it is possible, Why don’t buy them out of the State?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it goes like this:

1968 law says you have to transfer hand guns through FFLs over state lines, AG says FFL's can't sell stuff they don't like...

Viola - no glocks, unless they were here or moved in with new residents (the only exception that I am aware of).

 

[Mrs. Magnum]

The problem is that the legislators have NO INFLUENCE on the AG. The AG is elected and independent of the legislative process.

The Glock Rep that I've met (LB) is a real nice guy and very knowledgeable, but much too low on the food chain wrt the decision-making at a corporate level.

Thats the guy.

I understand that the AG and the legislators are not connected in an manner but I think that getting GLOCK and the reps in the same arena is a good start.

LB from GLOCK is not high up in the company but the after action report that he delivers to the big wigs about his time spent on the range with the legislators will speak volumes.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Economics seems to be a lost science these days[sad2]

To echo what others have said, so long as Glock has a deep order backlog, there is no reason to pay one extra cent of transaction/development/sales cost to get into the MA market...

Even if they haven't "given up", it doesn't make sense to pay to sell guns you cannot deliver...

Thank you for saying what I was trying to get across to the good folks here on NES. I hope some more folks "get it" from your post.

Until congress and the white house change stripes, all mfrs will be buried with orders that they can't fill . . . and in no mood to incur extra cost and hassle to address the insanity in MA.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Kim, it certainly won't hurt and good for GOAL in doing this.

When the timing is right, we might get somewhere . . . we just have to wait out the buying binge . . . which I predict will only stop when a new administration takes over (maybe) or a ban is put in place (in which case Glock would be irrelevant).

 

[Mass-diver]

But if somebody pays big money to acquire the gun (which they would have to in Mass), should they have to mark it down and take a loss to sell it?.

You don't think that lots of the $800 gen 3 glocks that we see in MA are from cops and FFLs (that don't care about the rules)?

On another subject, I had also heard that glock was backordered a ton, but there doesn't seem to much a shortage of glocks in many free states from what I have heard from out-of-state friends.

Any of the NH/ME/RI guys want to chime it? Is it impossible to find new glocks in your states?

 

[Titan]

I absolutely detest arbitrary requirements on manufacturers, designed to encourage them to pull their products from the market.

Having said that, any gun manufacturer who doesn't begin to address some of the MA requirements (loaded round indicator, etc.) is just hurting themselves. If they built in the easiest features (forget about the 10lb trigger), they'd sell more guns to MA, CA, NJ, etc. etc.

They should also realize that as long as we have 'one party rule' (looks like a very long time), they're more likely than not to see many of these 'requirments' become federalized.

MA and similar Dem dominated states are simply 'sand boxes' for what the leftists will attempt nationally, given unchecked power and a complicit national media.

As bizarre as these 'laws and regs' are, there seems to be little appetite or competence to challenge them.


When you have laws/regs that are THIS BAD and go unchallenged, you end up with more of the same.
.

 

[lupis42]

Im sure this rep from GLOCK let the legislators know some of it.

The legislators that attended were looking to learn about shooting and safety, some of them knew nothing about firearms. I know the GLOCK rep is not shy about letting people know. He was at the Outdoors man show at the DCU center and he told everyone from MA that they can look but they can't buy. He was very informative so Im sure he treated the legislators the same way.

Now we can only hope some of it sinks in.

 

[MassBites]

You guys are getting your wires crossed.

Glock DOES get most of their handguns tested and on the roster.

The problem is the AG's regulations. There is no "test" for that, other than an arbitrary one imposed by the AG's office. The "test" there is making
a guessing game on what the AG will allow.

Remember there are two tiers of compliance in MA. Glock has no problem passing the first tier. It's the second, more arbitrary one that is the problem.


-Mike

Mike is correct. When I called Glock about 6 months ago, the woman I spoke to told me that on several occasions, Glock tried to satisfy the requirements of the AG's office. But every time they complied with a stated "safety" regulation, the AG's office would then add a new one.

After a number of attempts to satisfy the demands of the AG's office, Glock just gave up. That's what I was told. She said that it became evident to Glock that no matter what they did, the Massachusetts AG simply didn't want Glock to sell their firearms in this state and was determined to block them.

I hate Massachusetts. I hate this state more and more every day.

 

[Bob's Gun & Archery Shop]

this is why they wont make us mass glocks

 

[Becka]

Has this been posted before? I swear I just got de ja vu...

 

[Bob's Gun & Archery Shop]

You know the real power lies with the manufactures, all of them. They just need to make their own laws. No police sales to any state or government agency.

If any state restricts the right to purchase firearms that the very state deems unsafe for civilian sales, they also would be unsafe for law enforcement.
If all manufactures would stand together on this, they would think twice about making gun laws that exempt law enforcement and infringe on the rights of civilians.

 

[drgrant]

The problem is that the legislators have NO INFLUENCE on the AG. The AG is elected and independent of the legislative process.

The Glock Rep that I've met (LB) is a real nice guy and very knowledgeable, but much too low on the food chain wrt the decision-making at a corporate level.

Well, technically the Legislators could easily pass a law that strips the AG of the authority to regulate handguns. I admit the chances of this are
slim, but that would be the most obvious fix to the problem.

-Mike

 

[S. Kelly]

The last AG, who set forth the AG's "safety act", hails from Springfield MA. With Glock out of the picture (even though they seemed to comply with the safety act's mandates), a certain manufacturer, who lost market position in the 80s and 90s, was poised to fill the gap. And profit from it. Funny how things happen, huh?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

LB from GLOCK is not high up in the company but the after action report that he delivers to the big wigs about his time spent on the range with the legislators will speak volumes.

LB may not have an exceptionally high rank, but I can assure you he is highly connected. There are a small number of people who service Glock in the Northeast who are actually Glock employees - LB is the commercial sales manager. He works VERY closely with Glock's chief trainer, and the fact that he was selected without a LEO or Military background for a sales position speaks volumes about the regard in which he is held.

Glock's chief legal counsel sent LB out to the EOPS target gun hearings (which resulted in no changes to the proposed regulations that hurt us but, fortunately, also resulted in none of the changes requested by the AG's office), and was one of only two manufacturers to do so (the other being a small niche firm - Glock was the only one of the "top 10" manufacgturers at that meeting)

There is no amount of "retesting" that would qualify a Glock. The AG retains the full power to unilaterally declare a gun "Unsafe, non compliant, all dealers will pay a $5K penalty per gun sold or prepare for trial in a MA courtroom." If you think that is a bluff, look at the case where firms selling BB guns via mail order got whacked with over $70K in judgments in a MA court. In some cases, it's like the ancient Ruggerio v. Roach case where a Boston cabbie asked "how much money is a large sum" when appealing his denial of an unrestricted LTC - the answer the commissioner Roach gave was the he "was not prepared to answer" (as in "it's always going to be some figure larger than whatever you prove you carry"). Similarly, there is the very real risk that no matter what Glock does, the AG will "just happen" to conclude the "didn't quite make the cut" on the safety issue.

Glock went to great lengths for MA, including several design changes for compliance - some obvious; some not.

Even after all this, Glock sent LB to the GOAL event, and their rep continues to keep in contact with MA shops despite the inability to sell new guns behind enemy lines.

 

[Mass-diver]

Nice post Rob. Thanks

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well, technically the Legislators could easily pass a law that strips the AG of the authority to regulate handguns. I admit the chances of this are slim, but that would be the most obvious fix to the problem.

-Mike

Correct, but for political reasons this will never happen . . . GOAL tried to get the legislature to do this some years ago and it died on the legislative vine.

Rob, thanks for telling the rest of the story . . . I didn't want to go deep into what had previously transpired here.

For the rest of NES: Rob and myself were the two people who had discussions about this subject with Glock's chief counsel. Rob, myself, LB, a distributor and another individual met after the target bill hearings to discuss what had happened and strategy for the future (at that time . . . ~2 years ago).

 

[henchmen77]

Mike is correct. When I called Glock about 6 months ago, the woman I spoke to told me that on several occasions, Glock tried to satisfy the requirements of the AG's office. But every time they complied with a stated "safety" regulation, the AG's office would then add a new one.

After a number of attempts to satisfy the demands of the AG's office, Glock just gave up. That's what I was told. She said that it became evident to Glock that no matter what they did, the Massachusetts AG simply didn't want Glock to sell their firearms in this state and was determined to block them.

I hate Massachusetts. I hate this state more and more every day.

That is when glock she stop all sales of Glocks and parts or service to any LE department in the state. You have to play hard ball sometimes!

 

[cekim]

That is when glock she stop all sales of Glocks and parts or service to any LE department in the state. You have to play hard ball sometimes!

Cost of Sales...

I am sure they've thought about such tactics, but LE sales are bread and butter... They come in big lumps with low per unit cost of sales...

So, I'd be surprised to see them do this... Not only would they lose their contract the next go around (and let's face it, LE has plenty of viable, similar, functionally equivalent options... It's all about price and service contracts).

Again, when the climate changes (Thanks Al) and they can catch up on production - the incremental loss of sales in MA would make this more worth-while... But for now I'd be surprised to see hard ball get played...

 

[MasterShinken]

so can anyone bring charges against the AG for abusing his power for things like this?

 

[Gammon]

Cost of Sales...

I am sure they've thought about such tactics, but LE sales are bread and butter... They come in big lumps with low per unit cost of sales...

So, I'd be surprised to see them do this... Not only would they lose their contract the next go around (and let's face it, LE has plenty of viable, similar, functionally equivalent options... It's all about price and service contracts).

Again, when the climate changes (Thanks Al) and they can catch up on production - the incremental loss of sales in MA would make this more worth-while... But for now I'd be surprised to see hard ball get played...

I see a slightly different tactic. A grass roots protest by the gun owners of MA and perhaps GOAL. Why should LE personnel have access to weapons deemed unsafe by the AG? If these weapons are unsafe, no one should be allowed to purchase them, particularly LE personnel who carry them on a daily basis and might be forced to use them in a public situation.

The logic is rather simple; either these weapons are safe or not. If they are unsafe, no one should be allowed to purchase them. This approach would put pressure on both the manufacturer and the AG.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

For the rest of NES: Rob and myself were the two people who had discussions about this subject with Glock's chief counsel.

The interesting thing here is that Glock's counsel initiated contact with us, not the other way around.'

Rob, myself, LB, a distributor and another individual met after the target bill hearings to discuss what had happened and strategy for the future

Dang - I thought we met to have lunch

So, I'd be surprised to see them do this... Not only would they lose their contract the next go around (and let's face it, LE has plenty of viable, similar, functionally equivalent options... It's all about price and service contracts).

LE sticks together. All it will take is a few articles about gun company doing this in the police magazines, and that manufacturer would find it's market share eroding across the country.

 

[FalArAk]

I'll tell you who doesn't want to see Glock enter the market in MA,MA gun dealers.

 

[Executive]

Glock may have a huge backlog of orders but it is impossible to determine if they are for commercial (consumer) sale or for contract (LE, Military, or overseas) sale.

I'm pretty sure that Glock's biggest market is in LE. So they're backordered. That means that the Anytown, USA PD needs to wait a few more months for their new sidearms. This may or may not effect the OTC market. Unless you count beans for Glock, you'll never know.

The only time we'll ever see a "MA compliant" Glock is if they ever decide to retool the factory. This would require an extensive redesign of the current Glock pistol "perfection". This is unlikely.

The best chance for us here in MA to increase firearm availability and selection is to elect an AG who does not engage in arbitrary and capricious penalization of a legal and regulated product and the constituency who uses that product.


Chris

 

[Len-2A Training]

so can anyone bring charges against the AG for abusing his power for things like this?

You need to study the history of this . . . already tried and the court ruled that what the AG did was "perfectly reasonable" to protect the sheep. We lost and can't raise that issue again.

I'll tell you who doesn't want to see Glock enter the market in MA,MA gun dealers.

Greg, please elucidate?

If you mean that it will erode their "profit margin", I could understand that but I think that they would sell more and make normal margin, probably equaling or exceeding gross profits from Glock sales. Also MA dealers have to spend too much time now searching for compliant Glocks and that would go away, reducing admin costs to the dealer.

The dealers are who blew the lawsuit i referenced above and other than one blow-hard who spouts off to the media whenever he gets a chance, there is no "dealers association" any more and no cohesive organized group to lobby for anything (dealer wise) on our side.

 

[hicksonj]

The issue isn't the design or confirmation to a specific (or shifting) AG standard. The issue is the glock image. For all intent and purposes, a S&W M&P without a safety is the same gun (in terms of safety features and intended functionality) as a glock. The dichotomy lies in image. Tupac never rapped about his M&P and a S&W is not a gang status symbol. Few civilians realize that glocks are the go-to military and police gun worldwide and that millions of law abiding "gun nuts" have at least one glock in their safe.

Glock could implement a safety on their product that requires your CLEO to enter in a special code each time you want to squeeze off a round and a chambered round indicator that plays Hava Naguila when the gun is l&c-ed, but these won't change their qualification.

Ask you grandmother what she thinks of when you say glock, and you will most likely get an image of a gang banger with pants at his knees and a red bandanna robbing a liquor store. Ask the same about S&W, and you will most likely get an image of a blue collar guy protecting his home from the previous individual with a glock.

The coattails of this image problem has greater implications for glock. Few would argue that gun laws are contagious, and MA is holding itself out as the model for states' reformation of their gun control. If glock doesn't spend the time and money to rebrand themselves as a company fighting for the good guy, they might find themselves dying from a thousand (or at least 50) cuts.

Also... don't forget that glock has its finger in the till in MA. Their little buyback and refurbishing program generates some serious income to their enterprise. They have been flooding MA with ex-pd and civilian pre-ban glocks for quite a while now. This isn't a sustainable business model, since fewer viable glocks remain on market.

Turning back to the AG, taking the person out of the picture, step back and look at the platform for re-election. Would this state re-elect and individual who opened the doors to the go-to street and gang killing tool?

Glock has people much smarted than you and me, who spend all day working on brand image. They have chosen to ignore Mass as a lost cause. If they don't want to fight the good fight, whatever. I would rather support a company that makes a good product and fights with equivalent quality. I personally would prefer to see HK on market than a company that hasn't improved their design in any way meaningful in decades.

 

[Ish]

Ask you grandmother what she thinks of when you say glock, and you will most likely get an image of a gang banger with pants at his knees and a red bandanna robbing a liquor store. Ask the same about S&W, and you will most likely get an image of a blue collar guy protecting his home from the previous individual with a glock.

So if I understood correctly, you are saying that Glock = Bad guys and S&W = Good guys. God help us all, because around 80% of the Law enforcements over in Europe carry a Glock, so they must be the bad guys. 100% of the FBI agents are given a Glock 22 after their graduation, so I guess they must be bad guys, etc, etc.

Glock pistols are popular with law enforcement agencies, the military, security personnel, and defense-minded private citizens. Glock was the first manufacturer to offer models chambered in the .40 S&W cartridge (Glock 22 & Glock 23 - 1990), beating Smith & Wesson to the marketplace with their own cartridge. The Glock 22 is currently (as of mid-2006) the single most popular police sidearm in use in the United States.

Glock reports sales of over 2.5 million handguns in over 100 countries. Glock sidearms are very common handguns among law enforcement agencies and military organizations around the world. They are standard-issue sidearms for the Austrian, Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian Army and Northern Irish police forces, various special units such as the German GSG 9 counter-terrorism unit of the German Federal Police, Specialist Firearms Command of the London Metropolitan Police Service as well as the new Iraq security forces.

Read more here: http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/Glock

Ish.