Mass Attorney General's reasoning for why no more new Glocks can be sold in Massachusetts.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Mass Attorney General's reasoning for why no more new Glocks can be sold in Massachusetts.

Posted: 4/12/2006 5:56:21 PM EDT

I found this link while posting a reply on Glock talk.

For those who don't know, Glocks, and alot of other new handguns, were no longer legal to sell in Massachusetts after the state passed a "Consumer Protection" act, making a large number of guns illegal, if they were made after October 1998, and didn't have a large number of safety features, heavy triggers, etc...

Glocks were legal for about a month, then hundreds had to be recalled. Below is the statement
from the attorney Generals office on why.

www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=1699

Posted: 4/12/2006 6:10:03 PM EDT

[#1]

wow good thing they are looking out for us cause we are so incompatent someone has to protect us.. I say bring him to Texas and lets hang em..

Posted: 4/12/2006 6:12:48 PM EDT

[#2]

Good. More Glocks for those of us in FREE states.

Posted: 4/12/2006 6:12:59 PM EDT

[#3]

That is almost 2 years old but I will say,"Attorney General Tom Reilly sounds like a moron"

Posted: 4/12/2006 6:15:05 PM EDT

[#4]

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

..Because they're the only ones professional enough to handle a Glock .40...

Posted: 4/12/2006 6:22:03 PM EDT

[#5]

Fuck Massachusetts, John Kerry, and that walking talking useless waster of oxygen, good liquor, and innocent young ladies' lives, Ted Kennedy.

Posted: 4/12/2006 8:47:02 PM EDT

[#6]

Glock should do what Barrett did in regards to Cali. and refuse sales and service to LE in Mass.

Posted: 4/12/2006 8:48:40 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Glock should do what Barrett did in regards to Cali. and refuse sales and service to LE in Mass.

right, I can see them doing that

Posted: 4/12/2006 8:57:52 PM EDT

[#8]

I did say should. Hell I might even buy one if they did that.

Posted: 4/13/2006 3:12:37 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Glock should do what Barrett did in regards to Cali. and refuse sales and service to LE in Mass.

I don't think that would make a difference, due to the fact that there is so many Glocks around. There are spare parts galore from sources other than Glock. Not the same for Barrett, at sometime especially after so many rounds, the LAPD must go to Barrett for those special parts.

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:12:45 AM EDT

[#10]

I have my own beliefs that Glocks are dangerous pistols by design given the lack of manual safety and lighter trigger pull, but this asshat makes no sense.

1. The same result could be achieved by forcing compliance via A) factory/aftermarket safety, or B) a heavier factory triggerpull for any new models to be sold.

2. IF the weapon is so dangerous they should NOT be seen in the duty holsters of any LE officer.

Either it is universally unsafe or it is not.

(I'm still shocked nobody joked they were classified as destructive devices, yet

)

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:13:56 AM EDT

[#11]

What part of US code prohibits a state from invading another state?

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:16:22 AM EDT

[#12]

The whole argument of GLOCKs being dangerous makes no sense. If a person doesn't have enough sense to keep their finger off the trigger, what makes anyone think they will have enough sense to properly use a manual safety either?

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:20:10 AM EDT

[#13]

Cant we just declare it not a state?

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:23:54 AM EDT

[#14]

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

..Because they're the only ones professional enough to handle a Glock .40...

Man, you're gonna get so sued for saying that.

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:25:13 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
That is almost 2 years old but I will say,"Attorney General Tom Reilly sounds like a moron"

And now he's running for Governor. Yay.

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:34:05 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
The whole argument of GLOCKs being dangerous makes no sense. If a person doesn't have enough sense to keep their finger off the trigger, what makes anyone think they will have enough sense to properly use a manual safety either?

It would be different if someone else who hasn't read this debate in 40 other places posted this. You have read the other argument at least 3 times. I can respect that you don't agree with it, but I have serious doubts you don't understand it.

1. Pistols can come loose in a holster and snag (yeah, million to one shot, but we had a member have such a close call w a Glock & underbrush)

2. Glocks are ready to fire the second they are pulled from the holster (some think this is good in SHTF) but it is not so good when you are sitting in your livingroom cleaning it while watching the playoffs. Fatigue, overconfidence from years of handling, and negligence (unawareness) all contribute to a potential ND. The same can be said for any pistol, but with a manual safety, you have to actively snap the safety down and which puts you in an immediate state of awareness (those who carry/train w manual safety pistols can relate)

3. Glocks require that the trigger be pulled to disassemble add this to the factors present in #2 and the situation is worse.

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:40:01 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The whole argument of GLOCKs being dangerous makes no sense. If a person doesn't have enough sense to keep their finger off the trigger, what makes anyone think they will have enough sense to properly use a manual safety either?

It would be different if someone else who hasn't read this debate in 40 other places posted this. You have read the other argument at least 3 times. I can respect that you don't agree with it, but I have serious doubts you don't understand it.

1. Pistols can come loose in a holster and snag (yeah, million to one shot, but we had a member have such a close call w a Glock & underbrush)

2. Glocks are ready to fire the second they are pulled from the holster (some think this is good in SHTF) but it is not so good when you are sitting in your livingroom cleaning it while watching the playoffs. Fatigue, overconfidence from years of handling, and negligence (unawareness) all contribute to a potential ND. The same can be said for any pistol, but with a manual safety, you have to actively snap the safety down and which puts you in an immediate state of awareness (those who carry/train w manual safety pistols can relate)

3. Glocks require that the trigger be pulled to disassemble add this to the factors present in #2 and the situation is worse.

Those are all great points, but they aren't the reasons Glocks aren't sold in MA. The S & W Sigma is sold in MA and has essentially the same safety features and operating system as the Glock. MA just has such a strict testing procedure that Glock decided they weren't going to manufacture a pistol specifically for MA, like other companies have chosen to do. They tried once, MA accepted it, dealers put it on the shelves, then 2 weeks later the AG changed his mind and pulled it. Glock said "screw you nut jobs".

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:58:07 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Those are all great points, but they aren't the reasons Glocks aren't sold in MA. The S & W Sigma is sold in MA and has essentially the same safety features and operating system as the Glock. MA just has such a strict testing procedure that Glock decided they weren't going to manufacture a pistol specifically for MA, like other companies have chosen to do. They tried once, MA accepted it, dealers put it on the shelves, then 2 weeks later the AG changed his mind and pulled it. Glock said "screw you nut jobs".

Of course not. Legislature never makes common sense determination with respect to guns. If I had an opinion that followed the same argument as the legislature (God forbid), I'd have to reevaluate my position PDQ.

Posted: 4/13/2006 6:30:46 AM EDT

[#19]

I was also thinking, wouldnt this open up any LEO's or Dept.'s that issue them as a sidearm to a lawsuit if they have to shoot a criminal?

Posted: 4/13/2006 10:28:41 AM EDT

[#20]

soo..

a pistol without a safety is unsafe because it is ready to fire once it is taken out of the holster.

MMmmmmm...

i hate to tell you this..
but since the invention of the the double action revolver..this idiosyncracy has been in place.

that argument doesnt wash..

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:05:26 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Fuck Massachusetts, John Kerry, and that walking talking useless waster of oxygen, good liquor, and innocent young ladies' lives, Ted Kennedy.

+1

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:29:36 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
The whole argument of GLOCKs being dangerous makes no sense. If a person doesn't have enough sense to keep their finger off the trigger, what makes anyone think they will have enough sense to properly use a manual safety either?

The Army - that is, by and large, the entire reason to HAVE a manual safety, as far as the .mil is concerned (under the logic that if soldiers are constantly drilled about keeping it on safe, if they fuck up with the trigger finger it will not fire).

That's why you will never see GLOCK as a military issue weapon for US military

That said, The MA law sucks ass...

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:49:41 PM EDT

[#23]

No more new Glocks on Mass. Why? Because ornery folks don't need no Glocks. Only professionahls need them Glocks.

Posted: 4/13/2006 5:50:18 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

i hate to tell you this..
but since the invention of the the double action revolver..this idiosyncracy has been in place.

that argument doesnt wash..

It DOES in fact wash when you add the max trigger pull of a glock at 5.5 pounds and they are usually 3.5.

Revolvers don't require breakdown to clean and if they did, they wouldn't require the trigger be pulled to drop out the cylinder
Glocks then are readily distinguishable from revolvers with respect to that argument.

Posted: 4/13/2006 9:30:28 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The whole argument of GLOCKs being dangerous makes no sense. If a person doesn't have enough sense to keep their finger off the trigger, what makes anyone think they will have enough sense to properly use a manual safety either?

It would be different if someone else who hasn't read this debate in 40 other places posted this. You have read the other argument at least 3 times. I can respect that you don't agree with it, but I have serious doubts you don't understand it.

1. Pistols can come loose in a holster and snag (yeah, million to one shot, but we had a member have such a close call w a Glock & underbrush)

2. Glocks are ready to fire the second they are pulled from the holster (some think this is good in SHTF) but it is not so good when you are sitting in your livingroom cleaning it while watching the playoffs. Fatigue, overconfidence from years of handling, and negligence (unawareness) all contribute to a potential ND. The same can be said for any pistol, but with a manual safety, you have to actively snap the safety down and which puts you in an immediate state of awareness (those who carry/train w manual safety pistols can relate)

3. Glocks require that the trigger be pulled to disassemble add this to the factors present in #2 and the situation is worse.

I think one of the main rules of safe firearms handling is " treat every gun as if it were loaded", if you can't remember that, then you don't need to be close to a firearm. The responsibility of gun use is no different than operating an automobile. You must be aware at ALL times. If people didn't talk on the phone, look for a lost CD and try to fix their hair while navigating through rush hour traffic, accident rates would drop drastically. Same with a gun.

Posted: 4/13/2006 11:51:45 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

I think one of the main rules of safe firearms handling is " treat every gun as if it were loaded", if you can't remember that, then you don't need to be close to a firearm. The responsibility of gun use is no different than operating an automobile. You must be aware at ALL times. If people didn't talk on the phone, look for a lost CD and try to fix their hair while navigating through rush hour traffic, accident rates would drop drastically. Same with a gun.

You're right about that. Nevertheless, we have multiple reports here every year about LEOs and everyday folk alike having NDs. They have blade guards on certain power tools that wouldn't be nec if people observed the rule: "Keep your fucking fingers away from here", but every year people too dumb, overconfident, negligent would lose their fingers. Nevertheless, Stupid people will be stupid and unfortunately reasonable people do act negligently occasionaly (sometimes at the worst possible time).

Posted: 4/14/2006 2:35:42 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Fuck Massachusetts, John Kerry, and that walking talking useless waster of oxygen, good liquor, and innocent young ladies' lives, Ted Kennedy.

Well spoken I must say! JD

Posted: 4/15/2006 5:15:53 AM EDT

[#28]

I would leave today if I could. I don't like Glocks, but this state is full of crazy people.

Posted: 4/15/2006 8:21:21 AM EDT

[#29]

The VAST MAJORITY of Glocks do NOT have a 3.5 trigger pull. The only ones that do are the 34 and 35 which are both competition pistols, that's what they are made for. It clearly states that they shouldn't be carried with a trigger pull that low. Now there are people who modify their Glock triggers to make them feel better, but those who do are a tiny minority compared to the people that simply buy them and shoot them as they came out of the box with their 5.5 pound trigger pull.

Nala

Posted: 4/16/2006 2:59:04 PM EDT

[#30]

>>I would leave today if I could.<<

I left in 1967 and never looked back.

RUT (in FREE N.H.)

Posted: 4/16/2006 3:35:05 PM EDT

[#31]

any state that keep sending fat bastage Ted to Washington, can not be counted on for adult reasoni ng

Posted: 4/16/2006 4:48:15 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The whole argument of GLOCKs being dangerous makes no sense. If a person doesn't have enough sense to keep their finger off the trigger, what makes anyone think they will have enough sense to properly use a manual safety either?

It would be different if someone else who hasn't read this debate in 40 other places posted this. You have read the other argument at least 3 times. I can respect that you don't agree with it, but I have serious doubts you don't understand it.

1. Pistols can come loose in a holster and snag (yeah, million to one shot, but we had a member have such a close call w a Glock & underbrush)

2. Glocks are ready to fire the second they are pulled from the holster (some think this is good in SHTF) but it is not so good when you are sitting in your livingroom cleaning it while watching the playoffs. Fatigue, overconfidence from years of handling, and negligence (unawareness) all contribute to a potential ND. The same can be said for any pistol, but with a manual safety, you have to actively snap the safety down and which puts you in an immediate state of awareness (those who carry/train w manual safety pistols can relate)

3. Glocks require that the trigger be pulled to disassemble add this to the factors present in #2 and the situation is worse.

Those are all great points, but they aren't the reasons Glocks aren't sold in MA. The S & W Sigma is sold in MA and has essentially the same safety features and operating system as the Glock. MA just has such a strict testing procedure that Glock decided they weren't going to manufacture a pistol specifically for MA, like other companies have chosen to do. They tried once, MA accepted it, dealers put it on the shelves, then 2 weeks later the AG changed his mind and pulled it. Glock said "screw you nut jobs".

yep

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Mass Attorney General's reasoning for why no more new Glocks can be sold in Massachusetts.

Handguns » Handgun Discussions

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us