mind-boggling GLOCK question

[sourcehill]

I just noticed that GLOCK certified the G38 and G39 on the newest MA compliant roster. Why would they do this if civilians can't buy them and for LE, it doesn't have to be on the list? Do I have my facts mixed up? Maybe GLOCK is going to release a small run of 'compliant' guns sort of like Para has been doing over the past few years. Maybe we'll see a "Ma**h***" on the top of the chamber to comply with the AG.

 

[patio]

Just because a firearm is listed on the roster does not mean it is "certified" or "compliant". You asked why woud GLOCK do that? Well GLOCK doesn't have to do anything for a firearm to get on the roster. GLOCK does have to submit the firearms for testing to the attorney general for consumer safety compliance testing which they have made clear they have no intention of doing. Two seperate things done by two seperate offices of government.

It isn't all that mind boggling, just a matter of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing once again. This changes nothing until GLOCK submits the guns for testing, and after the whole fiasco when they released the Massachusetts Compliant models you can pretty much bet that isn't going to happen soon if ever.

EDIT: To clear up any futher confusion refer to this paragraph which is ON the roster

TRANSFERS OF HANDGUNS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S HANDGUN SALES REGULATIONS; 940 C.M.R. 16.00 ET SEQ. FIREARMS ON THIS ROSTER DO NOT NECESSARILY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S HANDGUN SALES REGULATIONS. INFORMATION ABOUT THOSE REGULATIONS CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND CAN BE ACCESSED ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S WEBSITE; WWW.AGO.STATE.MA.US.

Sorry for the caps, it copied that way.

 

[Scrivener]

Mass misinformation

Just because a firearm is listed on the roster does not mean it is "certified" or "compliant". You asked why woud [sic] GLOCK do that? Well GLOCK doesn't have to do anything for a firearm to get on the roster.

FALSE to the point of absurdity. . The inclusion of a firearm on the AFR means PRECISELY that:

1. That model ofgun was tested per the MGL requirements;

2. The model PASSED said requirements; and

3. The GCAB certified the test results and approved the gun as compliant.

Anyone who claims that a manufacturer "...doesn't have to do anything for a firearm to get on the roster" is clearly clueless about the process.

GLOCK does have to submit the firearms for testing to the attorney general for consumer safety compliance testing which they have made clear they have no intention of doing.

Still MORE misinformation from an apparently very deep well of it. As stated above - and discussed in detail on this thread before, had anyone bothered to look - the AG tests NOTHING. The AG lists NOTHING. Grasp the concept.

The only useful part of the quoted post is the warning about the AG's intermeddling AFTER the GCAB performs its statutory role.

 

[patio]

Well I guess I stand VERY corrected. Sorry for the misinformation, truly.

Though, the only part I had confused in my mind was regarding who does the testing. Which apparently makes me clueless about the process.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Well I guess I stand VERY corrected. Sorry for the misinformation, truly.

Though, the only part I had confused in my mind was regarding who does the testing. Which apparently makes me clueless about the process.

Not really. The concept you missed is that the AG's determination of a guns compliance:

(1) Does not involve any testing

(2) Is done only in the form of declaring a gun non-compliant when the AG is assessing penalties, or using the threat of penalties to compell certain behavior such as a recall of all new Glocks sold after a certain date.

Note there the NO PROCEDURE by which someone can obtain certification from the AG that a gun complies. It is a conceptual misunderstanding to assume there is a procedure by which a gun may be certified as "AG regulation compliant" prior to sale.

 

[Fooped]

Point of clarification:

Not really. The concept you missed is that the AG's determination of a guns compliance:

(1) Does not involve any testing

(2) Is done only in the form of declaring a gun non-compliant when the AG is assessing penalties, or using the threat of penalties to compell certain behavior such as a recall of all new Glocks sold after a certain date.

Note there the NO PROCEDURE by which someone can obtain certification from the AG that a gun complies. It is a conceptual misunderstanding to assume there is a procedure by which a gun may be certified as "AG regulation compliant" prior to sale.

Agreeing with the above, this begs the ONE question that I have never gotten the same answer twice about: How does any gun manufacturer "know" that their guns are "legal" to sell in this state? I have asked this before many times at gun shops, and invariably the owner takes this pained expression and shrugs his shoulders. I've gotten answers that range from "I just sell what the distributors ship me, 'cause they won't ship me non-Mass compliant guns" (not an answer that I thought was well-informed or even 100% correct) to "What they AG does is entirely illegal and if the gun is on the EOPS list it is legal to sell!" (This also flies in the face of everything I've learned over the years) and most everything inbetween. What I have gotten with some consistency is that it seems to be a crap shoot with the AG minding the crap table as far as a gun "passing" (understanding the above posts, thank you) through 940 C.M.R.

What makes my brain itch is:

If there is no clear cut certification by the AG, and the prospective gun manufacturer realizes that their product may not be "Ma**h***" compliant (even though they passed the EOPS screening) How do they "know" that their guns can be shipped to Mass? One looks at the "Mass-compliant" Glock debacle and can only assume that the gun makers are wary of a repeat. Since the AG does not actually give a certification to ANYONE, what do the gun companies do? Slap all the "required" features (trigger pull, safety types etc.) on a supposedly compliant model, ship a bunch to the PRM and hope for the best"? Seems like a ridiculous business practice. I am in no way suprised that multiple gun manufacturers want nothing to do with Mass. as a result.

Anyone have the word (if there even is one) on this?

 

[Scrivener]

Since the AG does not actually give a certification to ANYONE, what do the gun companies do? Slap all the "required" features (trigger pull, safety types etc.) on a supposedly compliant model, ship a bunch to the PRM and hope for the best"?

Pretty much. Once a gun is placed on the AFR, the only other obstacle is the additional garbage placed in the CMR by the AG; the "secret" second serial number and LCI or magazine safety. And, of course, the mythical "5-year old child" inoperability test.

Having added those features and gotten the model approved, the prudent manufacturer would presumably present documentation to the AG by Certified Mail/Return Receipt. No response is tacit admission and claiming the gun to be NON-compliant when he had the opportunity to say so in a timely manner - but didn't - puts the AG in a poor position to challenge sales in court.

 

[Fooped]

Thank you for finally shedding some light on this! I know that this next point is a dicey one, but where do you stand (personally) on the widely-held notion that what the AG does (in this particular instance) would never stand up in court, and the reason that gun dealers follow 940 is largely due to fear of litigation/legal "hassle" by the AG, as opposed to actual state legal action for having broken an ACTUAL law. I am not a legal counsel of any kind, but my understanding is that the AG cannot "make" laws, just enforce them. Ergo, the 940 C.M.R. is not a "law" as some people would believe, but a regulation (hence c.m.R.) To compound this, a few of my associates are lawyers (admittedly not experts in this particular field), and when I ran the whole "AG list you can't see" concept by them, each and every one of them recoiled in disgust and offered the same answer: That the AG CANNOT stop an individual from purchasing an item from a retailer, nor stop that retailer from selling said item unless it is illegal to do so in that state (I use new Glocks as an example as they are clearly "legal" to sell being on the EOPS list). I'm very much interested in your opinion, as the undercurrents that I hear on a routine basis speak to the AG using fear and ambiguity, along with the uninformed public (and sadly, gun shop owners) to limit the purchase of otherwise "legal" guns in the PRM.

 

[Scrivener]

1. Regulations ARE law. Where do you think building, health, fire and ammo storage codes are found?

2. A challenge WAS mounted when this crap was first imposed - for whatever reason(s), it failed.

3. I know of no dealers that have the required assets (and I mean more than money) to challenge the practice now.

Indeed, we have dealers who are more onerous than the law requires, such as those invertebrates demanding LTC's for a mere Ruger 10/22 or an SKS. There are at least 2 threads on this subject and I won't waste bandwidth repeating them now.

 

[drgrant]

Thank you for finally shedding some light on this! I know that this next point is a dicey one, but where do you stand (personally) on the widely-held notion that what the AG does (in this particular instance) would never stand up in court, and the reason that gun dealers follow 940 is largely due to fear of litigation/legal "hassle" by the AG, as opposed to actual state legal action for having broken an ACTUAL law.

It doesn't really matter what the mechanics are.

The bottom line is the AG is an a**h***, and inflicts legal pain on anyone
that does something that he does not approve of. The AG's consumer
safety regs are specious and vague, at best. So essentially he gets to
make things up as he goes along, and gets away with doing that. No
dealer is typically going to stake his business on principle, and will end
up negotiating downwardly without getting into an expensive, protracted
fight with the AG. (Not to mention the AG could probably shut them down
temporarily at least during the struggle, which will further inhibit their ability
to wage legal battle).

Nobody has been able to articulate why the manufacturers, dealers, and
distributors have been unable to gang up on him legally. I think what happened
was there was an attempted suit before, and someone dropped
the ball. Then the people involved got disenfranchised and basically
said "F*ck this, this is costing us too much money, and we got nowhere
with it" and gave up. That's my best guess, at this point.

I think what feeds into the problems here is the level of corruption in
MA political and legal circles. The level of crap that the AG gets away
with is on par with some of the antics of despots in the continent of
africa. (EG, there is little oversight or checking of power, except in the
most egregious cases).

-Mike

 

[Fooped]

So I take it that although this type of tyranny happens everyday here in the good ol' PRM, what the AG does IS sketchy at best? It sure seems it to me. If the Glock pistols (for instance) were NOT on the EOPS list, it would be a much clearer (albeit still unconstitutional) line to follow. Vote for Larry Frisoli!

 

[Adam_MA]

Vote for Larry Frisoli!

+1

 

[Zgribnur]

...
Anyone who claims that a manufacturer "...doesn't have to do anything for a firearm to get on the roster" is clearly clueless about the process.

...

Still MORE misinformation from an apparently very deep well of it. As stated above - and discussed in detail on this thread before, had anyone bothered to look - the AG tests NOTHING. The AG lists NOTHING. Grasp the concept.

...

The only useful part of the quoted post is the warning about the AG's intermeddling AFTER the GCAB performs its statutory role.

You tell 'em Keith! I'm sick of all these people who don't already know everything taking up bandwidth on this forum. Why don't you and I blow this dump and start our own forum? We won't let anybody in who doesn't already know everything (like we do), and we can devote all out time to telling each other how great we are, how stupid everybody else is, and reviewing the latest entries on SNOPES.

Of course, we could always refrain from gratuitous denegrations of other people and simply provide useful information, but where's the fun in that?

 

[Scrivener]

Of course, we could always refrain from gratuitous denegrations [sic] of other people and simply provide useful information, but where's the fun in that?

Those who ask a simple, straightforward question will receive the simple provision of "useful information" you claim to desire.

Those who:

Fail to make even a de minimus search;

Provide FALSE information;

Try to rationalize their provision of information shown to be false; or

Shill for the above;

Can deal with the consequences of their acts/omissions. Make the effort....

 

[Lugnut]

Well to me a forum is for dialog... if it was better to search and look things up all the time why have a forum with these sections??? The admins can just close it down now unless someone can come up with cool new legal questions.

The problem as I see it is the laws, regulations, mandates or whatever you call them ARE complicated! Additionally, some people are better than others at explaining things and NO ONE is accountable for having the "correct" answers here. As we have read in this thread and others- lawyers don't even agree on some of these issues. MA laws are ambiguous at best and I'd be quite surprised if it's not intentional and NO ONE seems to have big enough balls to address it head on... myself included.

 

[Adam_MA]

NO ONE seems to have big enough balls to address it head on... myself included.

Oh, I've got the balls to stand up to "The man" and would in .5 seconds, if I had the bank account to back up my mouth!

 

[Lynne]

Oh, I've got the balls to stand up to "The man" and would in .5 seconds, if I had the bank account to back up my mouth!

Since I've got brass ovaries, I would too Adam, but my bank account is probably less than yours, so I empathise.

 

[Lugnut]

Oh, I've got the balls to stand up to "The man" and would in .5 seconds, if I had the bank account to back up my mouth!

Exactly.

 

[Scrivener]

Oh, I've got the balls to stand up to "The man" and would in .5 seconds, if I had the bank account to back up my mouth!

There once was a fellow named Krass
Whose balls were made out of brass
When he rubbed them together,
They played Stormy Weather
And lightning shot out of his ass!

 

[Adam_MA]

There once was a fellow named Krass
Whose balls were made out of brass
When he rubbed them together,
They played Stormy Weather
And lightning shot out of his ass!