| why not make the altering of the piece illegal as opposed to recalling everyone's new purchase and banning them again??? |
|
Originally Posted by The Jesters @ 13 Jul 2004 13:18
They were not "recalled" because of the trigger pull.
They were "recalled" because the AG did not think the load indicator was good enough. I think it is not illegal to possess one of the new guns, so just do not return it and you will be fine, but check with your dealer first. |
|
Originally Posted by MassAcademyXO @ Fri 09 Jul, 2004 08:45
Went to the range last night and was told by the gunsmith that all "new" civilian Glock pistols have been recalled in MA. MA just recently started allowing the purchase and sale of new generation Glocks. I was informed that dealers were touting how easy it was to change out the civilian regulation 10 pound trigger for the standard 5 pound trigger (which is available everywhere but MA). As a result of this the AG recalled all new Glocks. (not b/c they were unsafe but b/c they could be altered)
Amazing... I recognize that new laws take a while to be put into effect but why not make the altering of the piece illegal as opposed to recalling everyone's new purchase and banning them again??? ![]() |
|
Originally Posted by mpd61 @ Thu Jul 15, 08:24
Quote:
Let's cut out the opinions, emotions and MYTHS! http://fsguns.com/glocks.html The guns are NOT Mass compliant! Therefore ILLEGAL to possess. |
|
Originally Posted by anesthes @ Tue 19 Oct, 2004 09:17
Quote:
What amazes me is the AG still manages to convince people that the new glocks are less safe than the pre-ban glocks. |
|
Originally Posted by SOT_II @ Tue Oct 19, 15:23
This is an interesting point/perspective. The AG is basically saying that they were NEVER legal for sale. Said he never got the notice that they were going to be sold...so it will be interesting to see what happens.
To that end...it will aslo be interesting to see what the status of one of these "semi-legal" glocks is for resale... Quote:
|
|
Originally Posted by SOT_II @ Tue Oct 19, 19:12
The process is as follows:
You must have the gun independently tested to meet the MSP/FRB requirements. Once done and proof has been submitted, you then must notify the AG stating that your firearms will meet his consumer safety " standards", he has 30 days to reply back and say yes it does or no it doesn't. In this instance Glock says it notified the AG and after thirty days got no reply (no reply = approval). Then started selling the Glocks. Somewhere in the first month of sale the AG said "hey you never got approval as you never submitted a request", at which point Glock then requested AGAIN...and the AG's expert said, Nope no good. Now one would think that Glock, if they submitted the request would have said, yes here's the proof we requested it or here's the letter you sent saying it's OK or not OK to sell these guns. Glock evidently had none of this so they withdrew the guns. Now back to the issue, if the AG never apporved of the guns (which evidently is somehow in his pervue) then the guns are not legal for sale in MA. Now he could go force on and get everyone of those guns back via the FA-10's, or he could request a voluntary recall (ala consumer safety guidelines). If he would have issued a mandatory recall, I am sure that he would have given enough people standing to sue that someone would have and this whole "consumer protection BS" would have been brought to the court and hopefully thrown out (Thanks GOAL for dropping the ball the first time). So that's where we stand, guns never got the AG approval, so not for sale in MA, he issued a voluntary recall, so there's not really a grounds to sue, maybe a dealer dumb enough to sell the guns without waiting or making sure the guns were OK could...but none of them are. So what's the status of the Glocks now? I don't think a dealer would touch them as a trade in, the users may be able to sell them directly but when the FA-10 goes in, who knows? Even if Glocks do get approved at some point, these Glocks will be out of the serial number range, so they will never really be "legal" in the state. So no AG approval = not legal in the state. Glock can't provide the approval letter...so... |
|
Originally Posted by SOT_II @ Tue Oct 19, 21:43
Oh sorry:
Simple Chapter 140: Section 131 Licenses to carry firearms; Class A and B; conditions and restrictions (a) A Class A license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) firearms, including large capacity firearms, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems proper; Firearms being handguns, all lawful purposes being those that are allowed by law, since brandishing is displaying a firearm (handgun) and not allowed by law...you can't open carry. I think it's like 269 or something that defines crimes against public peace. But certainl ask you chief and see if he thinks you are allowed to carry open. If he says you can, I'd get it in writing beofer I did it. |
|
Originally Posted by anesthes @ Tue 19 Oct, 2004 21:48
Quote:
I'm going to be working for a town very shortly, where things are. Well, a bit different. |
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser