Glock...licensing fee??

Well Len honestly you're probably one the most knowledgeable members on here in these areas and if I ever had a real technical question you're the first one I'd ask. But to make such a comment without any info or explanation is pretty uncharacteristic.
So if you ever decide to point out any of my posts inaccuracies please post up or answer my PM. I'd love to actually know all the real facts surrounding that whole shit show after all these years.
 
Well Len honestly you're probably one the most knowledgeable members on here in these areas and if I ever had a real technical question you're the first one I'd ask. But to make such a comment without any info or explanation is pretty uncharacteristic.
So if you ever decide to point out any of my posts inaccuracies please post up or answer my PM. I'd love to actually know all the real facts surrounding that whole shit show after all these years.

I don't always have time to go into a long drawn out procedural response especially when what you claimed was so far off course. [It's all been posted here many times in the past.]

EOPS List is pretty straightforward and almost identical to the CA version. Here are the steps:

- Mfr (and only them) decide to submit a gun for testing. Samples are sent to one of a handful of approved test labs for the tests.
- Mfr submits test report to GCAB. If GCAB agrees, they submit their recommendation to the Secretary of Public Safety for acceptance and inclusion in the next published list.
- If and when the Sec. of Public Safety agrees, it gets added to the next published list. Only after publication in the newspapers can mfr legally (stressing "legally") sell the gun in MA.

Next is the AG Regs:

- There is no testing or approval process. The mfr self-certifies that it meets the AG Regs and provides that info to their distribution channel.
- The 10# triggers are not law, but AG Regulation (there are other ways to meet his requirement, such as the palm safety on 1911s). The LCI is also NOT a "law" (EOPS) issue but an AG Regulation issue.
- The AG Regs exempt LE from their ridiculous requirements.
- If the AG objects at any time, they send a cease and desist letter to the mfr demanding that they retrieve all except LEO guns or else face $5K fines/gun. That is what happened in the Glock case.

In short:

- The gun must meet both sets of requirements to sell to the subjects of MA.
- If the mfr decides not to submit to the GCAB and self-certify that they meet the AG Regs, it can't be sold/transferred in MA by dealers.
- Glock gets all their guns EOPS approved so that they can saturate the LE marketplace. After getting beaten up on BS by the prior AG, Glock has decided not to do anything wrt AG Regs after that time.
- Other companies decided not to play the stupid "gotcha" game in MA with the AG and thus won't get their guns approved here.
 
Well Len honestly you're probably one the most knowledgeable members on here in these areas and if I ever had a real technical question you're the first one I'd ask. But to make such a comment without any info or explanation is pretty uncharacteristic.
So if you ever decide to point out any of my posts inaccuracies please post up or answer my PM. I'd love to actually know all the real facts surrounding that whole shit show after all these years.

It's not that complicated, here's the summary version.

-Testing and approval for the EOPS roster is irrelevant for CMR940. CMR940 has no testing or approval. At all. There is NO WAY to determine whether or not your gun is CMR940 compliant other than by "attempting to sell it and see whether or not the AG gets pissy about it". That's the only way.

-In 2004 Glock probably fired off a letter to the AG saying "We believe these glocks we have with the LCI and 10 pound trigger pull are compliant with CMR940, so we are going to sell our product though MA licensed dealers, blah blah blah..." (this is SOP for most gun manufacturers).

-I would bet nearly anything the AG never responded to this notification. Or at best, Glock got back a form letter that really wasn't a
response to the declaration.

-After 3 months or so passed, the AG got pissy and told FS and anyone else who was selling them that the guns weren't compliant because the LCI wasn't adequate enough. No specific reason was cited beyond that. At that point FS attempted to get the guns back as part of a "good faith" effort of compliance, eg, FS attorney and AGs office worked out a deal where they said "If we try to get all the guns back then can you not sue us plz?" I think FS got most of them back but theres still a few window glocks out there.

-The AGs office likely knew FS and others were selling these glocks but they waited 3 months to whine about it; probably because they knew it would deter future attempts at compliance from Glock, if they hung around and waited until they set off a big shit show with all the new guns floating around, etc. They did it on purpose to cause the greatest amount of annoyance and BS to dealers and to the
manufacturer.

-I can sit down and have a cup of coffee with you and tell you a bunch of guns in MA that are CMR940 compliant but aren't really different from a Glock or an M&P, even after breaking down the regulations. My running theory is that the AGs office has a massive murderboner against popular, striker fired handguns that are purchased by a large portion of the public. The whole thing is just back door obstructionist gun control, really. Of course the AGs office is stupid in the respect that, they're not really stopping anything....

-Mike
 
I was told by a gun store owner that martha coakley husband owns guns and owns glocks . Any truth ?

He's a retired Cambridge cop. I think he was deputy chief or some other high ranking officer. If so, he was likely more politician than cop and less likely to be into guns (usually they are the "do I really have to qualify?" people).

Confirmed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Coakley
Coakley currently resides in Medford. She is married to retired police Deputy Superintendent Thomas F. O'Connor, Jr.[51]
 
Well, if the MSP were visiting dealers at the WS show that would definitely explain one interaction I had. I was there with my wife looking at handguns for her. Stopped at a table with a few glocks and other brands under glass and two guys behind the table. When we asked to see one of the glocks one guy reached for it and the other guy almost yelled at me in a somewhat panicked voice, "THOSE AREN'T MA COMPLIANT!"
I must have given him a funny look because he then, calmly, stated that we could see any gun we wanted but couldn't buy them because they weren't MA compliant. For half a second I thought about pulling back my jacket and saying, "Like this one?" but we just said thanks anyway and moved on.
MSP must have just been there.
So my wife says wait a minute, I thought glocks were compliant and I said they are, welcome to the F#+@ed up guns laws of Massachusetts.
Moot point I guess, she fell in love with the HK VP9.
 
lol That's the ONLY lci I ever use anyway.

You mean the AGI.

alwithgun.jpg
 
I don't always have time to go into a long drawn out procedural response especially when what you claimed was so far off course. [It's all been posted here many times in the past.]

EOPS List is pretty straightforward and almost identical to the CA version. Here are the steps:

- Mfr (and only them) decide to submit a gun for testing. Samples are sent to one of a handful of approved test labs for the tests.
- Mfr submits test report to GCAB. If GCAB agrees, they submit their recommendation to the Secretary of Public Safety for acceptance and inclusion in the next published list.
- If and when the Sec. of Public Safety agrees, it gets added to the next published list. Only after publication in the newspapers can mfr legally (stressing "legally") sell the gun in MA.

Next is the AG Regs:

- There is no testing or approval process. The mfr self-certifies that it meets the AG Regs and provides that info to their distribution channel.
- The 10# triggers are not law, but AG Regulation (there are other ways to meet his requirement, such as the palm safety on 1911s). The LCI is also NOT a "law" (EOPS) issue but an AG Regulation issue.
- The AG Regs exempt LE from their ridiculous requirements.
- If the AG objects at any time, they send a cease and desist letter to the mfr demanding that they retrieve all except LEO guns or else face $5K fines/gun. That is what happened in the Glock case.

In short:

- The gun must meet both sets of requirements to sell to the subjects of MA.
- If the mfr decides not to submit to the GCAB and self-certify that they meet the AG Regs, it can't be sold/transferred in MA by dealers.
- Glock gets all their guns EOPS approved so that they can saturate the LE marketplace. After getting beaten up on BS by the prior AG, Glock has decided not to do anything wrt AG Regs after that time.
- Other companies decided not to play the stupid "gotcha" game in MA with the AG and thus won't get their guns approved here.

Well thank you Len for taking the time to post all the "procedural" stuff that I won't argue the fact you definitely know way more about the process than I do but I was looking for specific information relating to the subject or case I referred to.
 
Well thank you Len for taking the time to post all the "procedural" stuff that I won't argue the fact you definitely know way more about the process than I do but I was looking for specific information relating to the subject or case I referred to.

If you're talking about the "Glock incident" see my post #63. Its pretty accurate.

-Mike
 
It's not that complicated, here's the summary version.

-Testing and approval for the EOPS roster is irrelevant for CMR940. CMR940 has no testing or approval. At all. There is NO WAY to determine whether or not your gun is CMR940 compliant other than by "attempting to sell it and see whether or not the AG gets pissy about it". That's the only way.

-In 2004 Glock probably[B/]fired off a letter to the AG saying "We believe these glocks we have with the LCI and 10 pound trigger pull are compliant with CMR940, so we are going to sell our product though MA licensed dealers, blah blah blah..." (this is SOP for most gun manufacturers).

-I would bet nearly anything the AG never responded to this notification. Or at best, Glock got back a form letter that really wasn't a
response to the declaration.

-After 3 months or so passed, the AG got pissy and told FS and anyone else who was selling them that the guns weren't compliant because the LCI wasn't adequate enough. No specific reason was cited beyond that. At that point FS attempted to get the guns back as part of a "good faith" effort of compliance, eg, FS attorney and AGs office worked out a deal where they said "If we try to get all the guns back then can you not sue us plz?" I think[B/] FS got most of them back but theres still a few window glocks out there.

-The AGs office likely knew FS and others were selling these glocks but they waited 3 months to whine about it; probably because they knew it would deter future attempts at compliance from Glock, if they hung around and waited until they set off a big shit show with all the new guns floating around, etc. They did it on purpose to cause the greatest amount of annoyance and BS to dealers and to the
manufacturer.

-I can sit down and have a cup of coffee with you and tell you a bunch of guns in MA that are CMR940 compliant but aren't really different from a Glock or an M&P, even after breaking down the regulations. My running theory is that the AGs office has a massive murderboner against popular, striker fired handguns that are purchased by a large portion of the public. The whole thing is just back door obstructionist gun control, really. Of course the AGs office is stupid in the respect that, they're not really stopping anything....

-Mike


Thanks for that Mike. That's probably the best explanation of the incident I've read about to date but like I said the "real facts" are probably only known by a handful of people.
I've mentioned it a few times over the years and you seem to be the only person who knows anything about it. I can honestly say that of all the folks I know who rushed to the store to purchase these said Glocks once the horn was sound, not One Has been returned to my knowledge. I still don't think it was fair or accurate to say I knew nothing of what I spoke of.
.
 
Well, if the MSP were visiting dealers at the WS show that would definitely explain one interaction I had. I was there with my wife looking at handguns for her. Stopped at a table with a few glocks and other brands under glass and two guys behind the table. When we asked to see one of the glocks one guy reached for it and the other guy almost yelled at me in a somewhat panicked voice, "THOSE AREN'T MA COMPLIANT!"
I must have given him a funny look because he then, calmly, stated that we could see any gun we wanted but couldn't buy them because they weren't MA compliant. For half a second I thought about pulling back my jacket and saying, "Like this one?" but we just said thanks anyway and moved on.
MSP must have just been there.
So my wife says wait a minute, I thought glocks were compliant and I said they are, welcome to the F#+@ed up guns laws of Massachusetts.
Moot point I guess, she fell in love with the HK VP9.

There's one dealer at a couple of the MA shows that is a raging douchebag that also has a bunch of non compliant stuff on display and then whines at people when they don't read his tiny little"no sales to MA" sign near the guns thats printed in like 8 point font that's barely visible. I forget the name of the guy's shop but its one of those ones that I know it when I see it, and I usually steer clear of him.

-Mike
 
Thanks for that Mike. That's probably the best explanation of the incident I've read about to date but like I said the "real facts" are probably only known by a handful of people.
I've mentioned it a few times over the years and you seem to be the only person who knows anything about it. I can honestly say that of all the folks I know who rushed to the store to purchase these said Glocks once the horn was sound, not One Has been returned to my knowledge. I still don't think it was fair or accurate to say I knew nothing of what I spoke of.
.

There were plenty of people that returned them but plenty of window glocks are still floating aorund out there too, anytime you find a 3rd gen that isn't too beat up but has a horrible trigger in it, that's probably one of the guns sold during that interval. The real facts are pretty much in my post, there isn't much in the way of secret squirrel stuff here. It just seems that way because the AGs office doesn't say much when they take action against someone. This is intentional, by design. It is a "feed them shit, keep them in the dark" philosophy that has been passed down in the MA AG's office since Harshbarger was in power and possibly before that, basically Harshbarger, McQuilliken and all these other anti gun faggots got together and created this whole CMR940 bullshit pretty much to **** with gun owners and dealers, and it's frosted turd on a plate that keeps getting passed down from one AG to the next... which kinda makes sense because all of these AGs are cast from more or less the same mold. There fundamentally isn't much difference between the way Harshbarger, Reilly, Coakley, and Healy have behaved in that position.

The AG has always done business with CMR940 in a black box kind of way. They won't delineate the regulation any further because they don't want to be on the record. They don't want to make a declaration that someone can use against them in court. That's why when vendors and manufs send them compliance letters they either get nothing back, or they get some stupid shitty form letter that basically says "The attorney generals office is currently enforcing the consumer safety blah blah blah..." which is so generic
that it effectively says nothing.

-Mike
 
Which is even more stupid because you can buy a trigger kit and throw it in. I'm assuming that's not illegal in Massivetwoshits.

No, it's not at all... but some of the window glock buyers don't know that, or didn't care.. They bought the gun and threw it in the safe.

-Mike
 
There's one dealer at a couple of the MA shows that is a raging douchebag that also has a bunch of non compliant stuff on display and then whines at people when they don't read his tiny little"no sales to MA" sign near the guns thats printed in like 8 point font that's barely visible. I forget the name of the guy's shop but its one of those ones that I know it when I see it, and I usually steer clear of him.

-Mike

Sounds like the dude that had older mags and belts, I asked if he had a ppsh41 drum or soumi . Very rudely Why you can't buy them cause of your states stupid gun laws ...
Didn't like it when I said considering they havnt been made since at least the 70's it's safe to say there pre ban .
Mean while the guy next to him was selling p mags and bx25 mags to any one .
 
Back
Top Bottom