- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
Glock does not have a manufacturing facility and HQ with "on staff" legal counsel in this state, nor do they have any state rep or senator in whose district they are a major employer and taxpayer.
-
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***
Who would like to see glock sell in Mass?
- Thread starter henchmen77
- Start date
Titan
Banned
Your right, of course.
The only problem is that the trend is to use the courts, AG regs etc. to accomplish what the left can't accomplish legislatively (because they can't get majority support).
Of course our move to one party rule is beginning to change all of that. Now, there are very few things that can't get done via legislation.
Just look at the fact that the House passed sweeping energy legislation last night that will increase EVERYONE's household energy costs, while the whole media world was obsessing over the death of Michael Jackson.
.
you mean...you cant get new glocks in MA???? weird...howd i get my 29sf then??? hmmmm
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
The dealers who brought the issue missed a filing deadline, and lost. It *may* be possible for a different plaintiff, damaged in a different way, to bring suit - if they have enough funding. A dealer is damaged due to lost sales; an individual is damaged by the inability to buy specific products. It would indeed be interesting to see an individual bring suit on the basis of "I want to buy XYZ, am fully aware of the features and limitations of XYZ, but am being told that I would be a victim of consumer fraud if someone sold me one. I am asking not to be protected in this from an act which to a fully informed buyer would not be an act of fraud".
To date, neither GOAL nor the NRA has offered to fund such an action. One is not interested, and the other simply does not have funds for legal fees, depositions, expert wittnessess, a trial, and possible (probable?) appeal.
That's the bottom line in my opinion...Same logic applies to online ammo sales,competition is bad for local dealers.Eliminate competition and profit.
What other readily available police trade in can a shop make $200-400 off of ?
Remember when someone posted that link a few years ago of some dealer in another state that had a ton of trade in Glocks for cheap?
Guy called up to order one and the dealer told him a shop (4Seasons I think) bought every last one of them.
Most people don't like paying $1K for a $5-600 gun.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Last edited:
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Don't worry guys.....GOAL will fix everything for you
WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you have something of value to add?
Inviting GLOCK to the GOAL legislative shoot was not going to "Fix everything" but at least we are doing SOMETHING.
I've never cared much for Glocks but a lot of people do, but here's the deal, it all goes back to economics. Glock is arguably the most successful handgun manufacturer on the planet right now. If Glock thought that the Mass market warranted the sale to civilians and they would realize great profit from it, they would have themselves wrapped around Martha Coakley's ass so tight, that she wouldn't be able to s**t. In the finest tradition of Mass politics they would be contributing thousands of dollars to her upcoming senatorial campaign. The thing of it is, is that they don't need our business here in Mass, nor apparently does Colt, Kimber and a bunch of high end custom and semi-custom gun makers. It just isn't worth the effort for them, besides Glock can sell all the pistols it wants to LE agencies in this state with no problem.
In effect, Glock doesn't care at the corporate level, and as long as they are making money, why should they? It's capitalism, pure and simple.
Mark056
In effect, Glock doesn't care at the corporate level, and as long as they are making money, why should they? It's capitalism, pure and simple.
Mark056
Last edited:
Well said.
$550 brand new with night sights suckaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Don't worry guys.....GOAL will fix everything for you
WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What the heck is that about?
If that was a jab at GOAL - then you should be ashamed of yourself. GOAL does so much to help promote and protect the 2A rights of people in this state. I shudder to think the legislative lunacy we would all experience if it were not for the vigilance of GOAL.
So, if you have nothing of value to add to this thread, I suggest you crawl back under the rock you were sleeping under, dream of MA without GOAL and realise what a nightmare that would be.
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
K
kimba8420
I am a big fan of the Glock. The whole loaded chamber indicator thing, is sh*t. Mass gun laws are horrible. Most people who know how to handle a firearm, treat every weapon as its loaded. DTA (Don't Trust Anyone). So what is the real issue with the indicator if you are supposed to treat the weapon as its loaded anyway!?!?!?!?!
As Mark pointed out, it's simple economic math!
- MA has a total of ~250K permit holders. How many have LTC-As? That's the requirement for almost all the Glocks out there (very few fall under 10 rd "as shipped" by mfr). Whatever the LTC-A number is represents the TOTAL MA CIVILIAN MARKET!
- Compare that to CA or almost any other state with 1million or more POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS.
- Where do you put your marketing money?
- MA has a total of ~250K permit holders. How many have LTC-As? That's the requirement for almost all the Glocks out there (very few fall under 10 rd "as shipped" by mfr). Whatever the LTC-A number is represents the TOTAL MA CIVILIAN MARKET!
- Compare that to CA or almost any other state with 1million or more POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS.
- Where do you put your marketing money?
Yes, it was a jab at GOAL, they could use a few jabs, (see my seperate thread about GOAL). No, I don't live under a rock, but I do live in the Granite state. Explain how Mass is not now a legislative nightmare after all the pro gun victories GOAL has won? If I were from Glock I would probably write Mass off for the same reasons several here have already mentioned,it's not economically viable, though it would be nice if they followed Ronnie Barret's example in Ca.
Gunner
Gunner
Yes, keep jabbing at GOAL- it's really fair, considering that only a tiny fragment of MA gun owners even support them at all.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Sorry, but the legislative BS in MA is not the fault of GOAL. It's the fault of each and every a**h*** MA voter (gun owners included) that don't vote properly in this state, and are more than willing to squander their freedom out for some libtard handouts.
-Mike
Mass-diver
NES Member
Lenm I know the above is true, but from what I've read in this thread, Glock (for whatever reason) is still interested in MA. Were it not for the "disagreement" about the loaded chamber indicator, we would able to buy them now.
Lots of companies put on MA compatible models so there must be some money here right? Why else would smith, sig, etc bother with MA compliant models if they couldn't turn a buck on sales.
This state might not have a ton of gun owners, but this is still a wealthy region on the country where there is a dedicated group of people that spend big buck on quality firearms.
Mass-diver, I think that Glock might be more willing to address the issue WHEN they get to the point that product is sitting on distributor shelved, unsold.
I think that some things can be done to make Glock available in MA, but the timing isn't right, as they can't deliver product (already sold) to the other 49 states . . . and that won't change until the "leadership" (?) in DC changes.
I think that some things can be done to make Glock available in MA, but the timing isn't right, as they can't deliver product (already sold) to the other 49 states . . . and that won't change until the "leadership" (?) in DC changes.
Absolutely right... GLOCK is making a ton of money right now. But, they can sit on their butts and reap profit without doing a thing or have some foresight on future direction of legislation (and maybe they are). I'll use the auto industry as an example - Ford made the SUV market (arguably) with the Explorer. They dumped all their money (R&D, Marketing, etc.) into the Explorer and SUVs - and they were right and made tons of money. If I was to be critical of Ford, I would say that they weren't forward thinking enough to anticipate what the future holds with regards to fuel... Within 1 year with gas at $4, they got their butts handed to them by... Toyota and their hybrid technology. Ford found themselves having to play catchup with hybrid technology since the SUV market tanked and guess who their paying to license hyrbid technology? Toyota put the investment in hybrid technology when there wasn't a 'need' for it while everyone else made bigger SUVs and Hummers. Another example is Southwest airlines - probably one of the only profitable airlines in the past several years... you know why? They bought fuel futures so while everyone was paying $6 a gallon (guess on the actual cost), they paid a fraction of that by purchasing future contracts. Again, anticipating the future...
I guess my point is that GLOCK (and every other gun mfr.) can reap money now and do nothing and that strategy will work for awhile (guess on my part that they are doing nothing)... But, if I was to anticipate what is going to happen with legislation, I would get ahead of the curve and innovate design/features that would set the precendence, working proactively with government to satisfy their 'needs'. They could find themselves in a position to license their 'technology' to other gun mfrs... I hate to say this but I see other states following the path of MA regarding firearm legislation - or worse.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
So, in other words, you want Glock to fail? What you're suggesting is only about three orders of magnitude worse than the S+W HUD agreement, or the statements Ruger sr. made. If there was a book about the issue, it's also called "How to destroy your brand image and nearly destroy your
company by making a couple of REALLY dumb decisions."
Basically, what you're suggesting is that Glock (and other companies) sell us out to the antis so they can stay alive.
Sorry, but this is about the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on NES in the recent past.
Let's put it this way- Capitulating to antis in this way is not much different than trying to negotiate with terrorists. As soon as they figure out that you're soft, they'll commit more acts of terror. Making "smart guns" and other crap, is no different than paying a terrorist's ransom, or capitulating to their demands, IMO.
-Mike
Last edited:
CH.180
Why don`t the dealers and GOAL get together and say we`re selling them and tell the AG to go f*** herself and GOAL and the NRA established a legal fund to defend them? That`s the only way we`ll get this illegal statute repealed.
Why don`t the dealers and GOAL get together and say we`re selling them and tell the AG to go f*** herself and GOAL and the NRA established a legal fund to defend them? That`s the only way we`ll get this illegal statute repealed.
Very well said. +1
So, in other words, you want Glock to fail? What you're suggesting is only about three orders of magnitude worse than the S+W HUD agreement, or the statements Ruger sr. made. If there was a book about the issue, it's also called "How to destroy your brand image and nearly destroy your
company by making a couple of REALLY dumb decisions."
Basically, what you're suggesting is that Glock (and other companies) sell us out to the antis so they can stay alive.
Sorry, but this is about the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on NES in the recent past.
Let's put it this way- Capitulating to antis in this way is not much different than trying to negotiate with terrorists. As soon as they figure out that you're soft, they'll commit more acts of terror. Making "smart guns" and other crap, is no different than paying a terrorist's ransom, or capitulating to their demands, IMO.
-Mike
No, I do not want GLOCK or any other Mfr. to fail. The reality is that the majority of this country is ignorant, does not do their due diligence in their fact finding, forms their opinions and beliefs on leftist news agencies and what Matt Damon has to say, so we end up with Obama and the other socialists in office who are anti-gun and will try their hardest to abolish firearms. The White House and Congress are a Democratic majority and there is no longer a 'check and balance' - at least during the Clinton era, we had Gingrich to keep things in check. Its a tough pill to swallow - trust me, I feel the same way as you - but given the current environment in government, IMO there needs to be a different strategy or we all lose. Although I strongly disagree with the direction regarding firearms, the government is not a terrorist. We live in this country and we abide by the laws of this country that are established by the government. The question is how you operate and survive the 'rules' and future 'rules' as a company - and with the people we have in office, you know what those future 'rules' may be...
Sorry, I did not mean for my post to be a political rant... My previous comments were more economics based than political. I have to believe that GLOCK is there to make money, not make a political stance, thus my previous comments... and it only applies to their consumer market - even if they 'destroy their brand image' with the civilian consumers, I don't know that the military and LE agencies throughout the world would make their decision based on this.
Currently the antis do not have enough votes in congress to pass any serious legislation. You're wrongly assuming that every dem in congress
is against us. While many of the "moonbat krew" are, there are also a considerable amount of pro-RKBA dems as well. This could and may
change in the future, though. The thing is, though, Gun control is rapidly going the way of Abortion at the federal level. Nobody in a diverse political district wants to deal with it because it only causes them a loss of votes.
Giving the enemy what they want is not a sound strategy, IMO. What you've suggested is nothing more than making it easier for them to
win. A manufacturer making "smart guns" and other crap like that is basically only validating the antis platform.
That's certainly arguable, but frankly the concept or idea is the same, eg, operant conditioning. The government and antis are very primitive
animals in this regard. It is imperative that we not make life for them any easier.
You forget that sometimes the industries also make the rules. If Glock and a bunch of other companies get together and say "F*ck microstamping." for
example, what is the government going to do? Shut them all down?
I guess my point is that Glock and other gun manufacturers would only see a short lived benefit from capitulating to onerous government regulation- Actually, it's worse than that- they'd essentially be signing their own death warrant- the first blow would come from consumers, the second blow would come from a huge loss of revenue as people buy less and less new firearms.
See above.
Further, time has shown that companies that don't support RKBA tend to get punished to some degree or another. S+W and Ruger have likely lost
millions of dollars in revenue for their transgressions in the past. They both survived, but their "political stances" clearly gave competitors a leg
up. I -still- hear people bitching about S+W and Ruger, despite the fact that neither company is really anti anymore. People do not let go of
grudges easily. S+W for example has spent years and tons of money to try to undo the damage the previous ownership caused.
Further, gun owners often tend to put more stock in companies that openly support RKBA by various means, whether it's sponsoring shooting sports or
having a pro-RKBA political attitude. For example, Ronnie Barrett's rifles are immensely popular in part because of his hard line pro-RKBA mentality. Buyers in that market segment respect and recognize that, and as a result, are more likely to patronize a business like his.
Glock's profits in the US from the civilian market are huge. The sales of LE guns actually often drive the sale of civilian guns, which actually have a
much higher profit margin. Glock uses LE sales as a marketing tool for non-LE sales. One hand washes the other, as it were.
Glock capitulating to antis would be like taking a machete and cutting one of those hands off.
-Mike
Last edited:
I hope you're right but I don't think this will be the case...
If the gun mfrs didn't give the 'enemy' what they want, we would not have 'approved' new firearms to buy in Massachusetts. The reason we can buy new firearms is because the mfrs complied to the regulations of MA. There are many mfrs who have 'given in to the enemy' to be able to sell firearms in MA. Again, my comments are about business economics and how future legislation may impact their business strategy...
Ask Obama this question... I imagine a big fat smile on his face. The government will not have to shut them down - just make it impossible and illegal for you (as a civilian) to purchase and own a firearm that doesn't comply with the regs. The government will continue to allow firearms for military and LE sale. Besides, this would never happen because there's just too much money left on the table... someone would break and we (as civilians) would buy it because its the only choice.
I never said anything about not supporting RKBA. The point I was trying to make was that as a company forseeing the direction of firearm legislation in the US, they can innovate design/features that could set the precendence in industry, thus, giving them a competitive advantage.
GLOCK has not 'capitulated' to the antis in MA, therefore, we as civilians cannot buy a 4th gen GLOCK (Actually they tried but for BS reasons of the previous AG, couldn't get through the 'rules'). If they were to 'capitulate' to the antis in MA and have a 4th gen GLOCK that allows civilians to purchase, would this still be 'taking a machete and cutting one of those hands off'? I guess it all comes down to what you consider 'capitulating to the antis'...
Mike, I'm right there with you on everything that you said... I think its BS that we can't have what the rest of the country can have because of BS rules in this state and it scares the hell out of me that my 2nd Amendment right may be at risk. Unfortunately, when I put my personal beliefs aside and put on a business hat running a company, the two don't see eye to eye.
Then why is it that every time the issue of gun control comes up in congress the moonbat krew gets nothing but crickets in response?
I realize pelosi et al would love to ban everything at the drop of a hat, but they're not going to burn up all thier political capital just yet to
attempt to do so. It's just not in the cards. That could all change in a few years, but the industry inventing garbage in response to potential
legislation is a disastrous idea. It only empowers the antis- then they get to say "See, even the GUN INDUSTRY thinks this is a good idea... "
Most of the guns on the approved roster are not much different than the ones sold in most free states. In a lot of cases all the manuf did was pay
to get the guns tested. There are a few guns set up with shit triggers that had to be modified to meet the AG's BS, but not very many. Most
of the rest of them are compliant by default, or were never modified (and only pass one tier of compliance, like the Kahrs). The only major
difference on most semis is the 10 round cripplemags supplied with doublestack autos.
Again, this type of crap, while in a way it is capitulation, isn't even in the same ballpark as what you're suggesting- which, I'm guessing, has something to do with technology that enables gun control, by making radical design changes to a handgun.
Any legislation against gun ownership (such as smart guns, etc) will reduce the pool of available buyers and reduce the proifit margins of the
company. Nobody is going to buy that crap. (At least I won't, and likely most of the rest of NES wouldn't. ) It's in the manufacturers (and gun owners) best interest to fight any of this crap that comes along if we can.
You'd have to confiscate a whole shitload of guns in this country for that to (effectively) happen. It's not. (at least, not without some bloodshed).
Any company interested in enacting what you suggested would be perceived by most gun owners as being anti gun. It'd be even worse for the manufacturer now than it used to be because of the internet- the manufacturer would get Zumboed so fast their head would spin.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
The issue there is not one of capitulation. The AG's office is intentionally being obstructionist to bar/block sales of Glock handguns. The AG has
not said "well, do exactly this and your gun will be compliant" rather it's an expensive guessing game for Glock.
I'd consider things like smart guns or other interfering technology to be capitulation; eg things that radically change how the firearm functions for
the benefit of gun control measures.
The part you're missing is that for companies like Glock, S+W, and Ruger, non LE sales are a very big part of their profits. They're not going to do something that seriously compromises that- as I mentioned before, S+W and Ruger have done that in the past, and they paid a heavy price for it.
A gun manufacturer would be insane to think about even suggesting something like anti-enabling technology. If you were party to a board meeting at any of these gun manufacturers, you would probably get laughed out of the room for suggesting it.
-Mike
Last edited:
Lets clarify... I never defined what specific technology GLOCK or any other gun mfr should introduce. I said 'innovate design/features that could set the precendence in industry, thus, giving them a competitive advantage' as it related to potential future restricting legislation.
Regardless of the legislation discussion, I think companies that don't innovate or challenge the norms will be industry followers, not leaders... I'm sure that when the idea of making a polymer gun was first brought up, that person was 'laughed out of the room for suggesting it' - look where we are today...
I waited a bit to get a new glock 26 in CT..got it for $500.....a new glock with FS is between $475 and $530 here depending on the model and a sale....night nights are more...17's and 22's seem the easiest to fine...10mm and .357sig the hardest....I hope we never get the AG approval crap here...i doubt it...we def have too many laws here in CT but they are not too easy to pass...in the past couple years they have not even come up for a vote in commitee because they do not have the votes to get it out...we did get the stupid lost or stolen gun law passed 2 years ago and some minors cannot possess machine guns this year..but one gun a month and microstamping have failed miserbly multiple times...as has requiring handguns to be carry concealed and banning private sales of long guns with no paperwork......even in a democratic controlled legislature..
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
