Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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???
:?: :?:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
why not make the altering of the piece illegal as opposed to recalling everyone's new purchase and banning them again???
Simple...the AG is one of many domestic enemies of the constitution that have managed to find their way into political power. :evil:

Ryan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,172 Posts
Our AG, what a "great guy". Another bolshevik (read: democrat) trying to alter our state and federal constitutions to secure their power. After all, we're much too stupid to know what's good for us...they'll help us by making the world a "Nuclear-free petting zoo".
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,658 Posts
The Jesters @ 13 Jul 2004 13:18 said:
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.
O.K.................................

Let's cut out the opinions, emotions and MYTHS!
:shock:

http://fsguns.com/glocks.html

The guns are NOT Mass compliant! Therefore ILLEGAL to possess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
AG's posting on their website regarding Glock sales in MA

http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=1132

CONSUMER ADVISORY
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ADVISORY ON GLOCK HANDGUNS

BOSTON - Attorney General Tom Reilly has learned that gun dealers recently began selling Glock handguns to Massachusetts consumers, after the company represented that the handguns were in compliance with the Attorney General's Handgun Sales Regulations.

AG Reilly's Office has notified Glock, Inc. that the "extractor indicator" device which the company recently added to its handguns is not an effective load indicator and, therefore, does not comply with the handgun regulations. The AG's Office reached this determination after consulting with firearms experts. In response, Glock has recalled all handguns shipped to dealers and distributors in the Commonwealth and ceased in-state sales.

AG Reilly offers the following information to consumers about Glock handguns:

• Glock handguns may not be sold to consumers in Massachusetts.

Handguns currently manufactured by Glock lack a load indicator or magazine safety disconnect, in violation of the handgun regulations. Therefore, handgun dealers may not sell newly manufactured Glock handguns to Massachusetts consumers.

Glock has instructed Massachusetts distributors and dealers to return all handguns. AG Reilly encourages all distributors and dealers to cooperate with Glock in this endeavor.

As always, the handgun regulations do not pertain to firearms used by law enforcement or military personnel as part of their official duties.

• Massachusetts consumers are encouraged to return recently purchased Glock handguns.

Glock has asked Massachusetts consumers who recently purchased handguns to return them for a full refund. Because the handguns lack an important device designed to promote the safety of gun owners and their families, AG Reilly encourages consumers to return these handguns.

• AG's Handgun Sales Regulations

The Attorney General's Handgun Sales Regulations fall under the state's consumer protection law and protect consumers and their families from unsafe handguns. The regulations require all handguns sold in Massachusetts to include certain safety and child-proofing measures and safety warnings.

The regulations require that all semi-automatic handguns contain either a magazine disconnect or a load indicator. The Glock handguns contain neither of these features.

The Attorney General's handgun regulations are intended to protect responsible gun owners and their families from firearms that are unsafe by design or manufacture. AG Reilly recognizes that there are many people in the Commonwealth who legitimately own firearms for hunting and sporting, and that those individuals use them in a responsible manner.

The Attorney General's Handgun Sales Regulations can be viewed at AG Reilly's website, http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=1579.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
312 Posts
At the time of purchase the gun was considered a MA compliant gun. What will happen if I do not return my new glock?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
In typical convoluted MA manner, the AG's webpage states that....
"Massachusetts consumers are encouraged to return recently purchased Glock handguns"
It also states that...
"As always, the handgun regulations do not pertain to firearms used by law enforcement or military personnel as part of their official duties."

"Encouraged"
:? :? :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Four Seasons Firearms stated it is a "Voluntary Return Request" and returned Glocks will be reimbursed in full including sales tax even if the firearm is used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
As a dealer, we got the letter and it's a voluntary recall. That being said it's been stressed that we make EVERY effort to get every one of them back.
I'll try and scan and post the letter someplace if anyone is interested.

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???
:?: :?:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
The Jesters @ 13 Jul 2004 13:18 said:
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.
O.K.................................

Let's cut out the opinions, emotions and MYTHS!
:shock:

http://fsguns.com/glocks.html

The guns are NOT Mass compliant! Therefore ILLEGAL to possess.
Only opinion and myth is yours. If you legally purchased the gun during that brief "window", then you possess it legally. End of story. The recall is "voluntary".

What amazes me is the AG still manages to convince people that the new glocks are less safe than the pre-ban glocks.
 

·
Thread Killa
Joined
·
6,056 Posts
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...

The Jesters @ 13 Jul 2004 13:18 said:
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.
O.K.................................

Let's cut out the opinions, emotions and MYTHS!
:shock:

http://fsguns.com/glocks.html

The guns are NOT Mass compliant! Therefore ILLEGAL to possess.
Only opinion and myth is yours. If you legally purchased the gun during that brief "window", then you possess it legally. End of story. The recall is "voluntary".

What amazes me is the AG still manages to convince people that the new glocks are less safe than the pre-ban glocks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
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...

The Jesters @ 13 Jul 2004 13:18 said:
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.
O.K.................................

Let's cut out the opinions, emotions and MYTHS!
:shock:

http://fsguns.com/glocks.html

The guns are NOT Mass compliant! Therefore ILLEGAL to possess.
Only opinion and myth is yours. If you legally purchased the gun during that brief "window", then you possess it legally. End of story. The recall is "voluntary".

What amazes me is the AG still manages to convince people that the new glocks are less safe than the pre-ban glocks.
I can't see them legally forcing people to return them.

1) They were made available for sale
2) The firearms were registered

Perhaps the AG will try to force people to return them in fear of prosecution. I can't see any judge siding with the state on this.

Of course *some* people will say they were illegal to begin with. Well, if that was true, every dealer that sold one would be hauled out in handcuffs. This wouldn't be a voluntary recall. And the guns would not be able to be registered.

Glock did what they think was right. The AG didn't know if they complied or not. Asked an expert, the expert dissagreed based on the letter of the law, so the glocks were recalled.

What exactly is the process of making a gun Mass compliant? I mean, did Glock just decide one day to start selling them and the dealers agree? Or did Glock goto the state, the state say "yeah sure" then the AG go "oh damn, more guns in mass, kerry will never get elected".. ??
 

·
Thread Killa
Joined
·
6,056 Posts
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
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...
Thank you for clearing up the process to me.

If Glock jumped the gun, it seems pretty stupid to me.. I think theres more to the story behind the scenes than we will ever see. The AG should be responsible for issuing a "receipt of request" the day it is requested, and if in 30 days no hear back, then the receipt is considered an approval.

As much as I appreciate Goals help, I don't really think they have the legal expertise necessary.

And the NRA could care less about Mass, to be honest.

In my research on related topics, I came across a post you made back in August. Something along the lines of, "Mass LTC requires conceal carry"

Could you point out to me where thats stated? I've searched that topic to death and can't find anything.

I asked my Chief and he said you could be charged for brandishing a weapon, but I couldn't really find anything to back that claim up either. Seems like a huge grey area.

P.s. I've found the spell check on this board very useful! I've found, I am a pretty bad speller!

-- Joe
 

·
Thread Killa
Joined
·
6,056 Posts
If you could show me the post that would be helpful but I'll offer this:

If you are carrying a gun for personal protection in MA, and it's not loaded...what exactly are you carrying it for?
You are not allowed to draw a pistol in MA unless you are in fear of severe bodily injury, threat of death, bla bla bla.

So if you are, and you pull an empty gun what exactly are you doing? You can't be that in fear for your life as you don't have a loaded gun. Your gun, not being loaded, isn't going to help you at all, so you are brandishing the weapon, nothing else.
You are using the threat of a firearm to intimidate with no real intention of using it.

What I tell people in class, if you are carrying a gun for personal protection, you carry it loaded, end of story. If you plan on carrying a gun that isn't loaded, don't carry at all (see above reason). There is NO reason in this world where carrying an unloaded gun for personal protection is a good idea, in fact it can lead to other problems and unintended consequenses (see above about brandishing).

Now if you must display your firearm and in doing so the threat goes away...you have NO legal recourse to pursue or to shoot. (I give the example of a mugger pulling a knife, if he curses at you and walks away with the knife, not a reason to shoot. If he drops the knife and runs, no reason to shoot, if he calls your mother bad names as he's running away, no reason to shoot. If he advances on you, that's a reason to shoot. )
We are not the police, we are not trained to the level of the police, no threat =no shoot for us.

Now I also assert that if you do pull your gun in a situation such as this (mugger with knofe), and do not have to shoot, you should IMMEDIATELY call the police from a safe location and repost the incident. Don't act like nothing has happened...don't just walk away...report it.

Think about it this way, I'm in my house I hear a noise outside, I look out and see a man with a gun and a guy running away. What just happened? I don't know but I'm calling the cops and reporting a guy with a gun just threated some other guy who ran away.
From your perspective on the street, a guy just pulled a knife, you were in fear for your life, you pulled your gun (thankfully you didn't have to shoot and you are very much alive) and the guy ran off. That's ONE of the reasons it's important to report these things.

Now what happens if you don't...cops are going to be looking for a guy with your description with a gun. Are they going to be friendly to you when they spot you? Are they going to care if you were in the right? No they are going to make a felony stop (and rightly so) and let the world figure itself out in court. The fact that there was a witness and that you didn't take time to report it, is that going to be in your favor? or against you?
What if when they found the gun it was unloaded? You have a Class A LTC, you should know the laws, but yet you pulled out an unloaded gun? Even if everything else you did was OK, you just pulled a useless piece of metal on a person to intimidate them, and that's not OK.

Carry concealed = carry loaded, pure and simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
OK.

I agree with your points, yet do not think you understood my question.

I'm not refering to carrying a gun unloaded, thats plain dumb, and a good way to end up dead, and provide your firearm to your killer, who may then use it on someone else.

I'm refering to concealed carry (hiddin) vs open carry (in a holster, in open view).

You made a reference in a post (which I'll try and find again) that open carry was illegal in mass, and you could ony carry concealed.

I could not find any such law to support that. Thats my question. ?
 

·
Thread Killa
Joined
·
6,056 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
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.
Well I don't work for that city any longer, but when I did he didnt seem to have a clear answer. Normaly I ask for reference to a law, rather than an opinion. Sure, open carrying is stupid, and I don't do it unless in uniform, but I am still CURIOUS as to the law! :)

I'm going to be working for a town very shortly, where things are. Well, a bit different.
 

·
Thread Killa
Joined
·
6,056 Posts
I'll try and find it exactly, it may be even more simple than I have stated it...

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.
Well I don't work for that city any longer, but when I did he didnt seem to have a clear answer. Normaly I ask for reference to a law, rather than an opinion. Sure, open carrying is stupid, and I don't do it unless in uniform, but I am still CURIOUS as to the law! :)

I'm going to be working for a town very shortly, where things are. Well, a bit different.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top