Glocks in California come 2008

[SacM5]

Is it 100% that Glocks will no longer be sold in California come 2008 due to the safety issue and Glock not revamping the safety on the gun (which they shouldnt by the way)?

Just want to know if this is 100% or not.

[Giggity-Giggity]

It all lies on Glock to pay the ridiculous CA fees.

Just buy them now before 2008!

[edwardjames]

if a person practices appropriate firearm safety religiously, a glock is more than safe i feel

[jdeere_man]

There is no "safety issue" with Glocks. There is however in some cases an "idiot issue" with people. (Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not directing this toward you, but rather toward people who "accidently discharge" their weapon, or intentionally discharge it with intent to commit a crime). I think everyone needs to get their panties out of a bunch over this incident in VA. Glocks will not get banned anywhere. Liberals would like to make you nervous about it though.

[SacM5]

Maybe I wasnt clear. I shoot Glocks in IDPA and have one in almost every model. However, my quesiton was NOT if they are safe or good guns. My question was is the California issue CONFIRMED that Glock will not be selling in California come 2008?

[voraus]

but only with one round magazines

[SacM5]

If anyone has any legitimate information on this topic that would be great. Thanks.

[dsg2003gt]

you could always call california DOJ. Arent they the ones who have final say?

[SacM5]

Well it is really up to Glock if they are planning on conforming to California wants. And then I guess on the other side it is up to California if they are really going to put a ban on Glocks due to the safety system they have installed. I really dont know. I am half tempted to stock up but dont want to be an idiot if they arent going anywhere.

[Kal El in SLO]

Is it 100% that Glocks will no longer be sold in California come 2008 due to the safety issue and Glock not revamping the safety on the gun (which they shouldnt by the way)?

for starters....where are you getting your information? i would like to know.

i was under the impression that glock could continue to sell their older models in california.....but after januaray 2007 couldnt sell any NEW models if they didnt have a mag release safety. hence the non-sale of the G21SF in cali. of course...i could be totally wrong. that's why im wondering where you got your info from. :)

[gmcal]

Originally posted by Kal El in SLO
for starters....where are you getting your information? i would like to know.

i was under the impression that glock could continue to sell their older models in california.....but after januaray 2007 couldnt sell any NEW models if they didnt have a mag release safety. hence the non-sale of the G21SF in cali. of course...i could be totally wrong. that's why im wondering where you got your info from. :)

You are correct. As long as GLOCK continues to pay the CA fees, they may continue to sell any/all of their models currently on the CA approved list.

[G22C]

Originally posted by gmcal
You are correct. As long as GLOCK continues to pay the CA fees, they may continue to sell any/all of their models currently on the CA approved list.

Just goes to prove that the lame politicians in CA aren't really concerned about "safety" in firearms. It's all about "$$$$$" and self-interests. :upeyes:

[Justin1584]

I have not heard this at all..

[RLShield]

I figued it out. Glock causes cancer in California.
I an glade I live in Alaska.
Glocks don't cause cancer in Alaska.

[Blitzer]

Originally posted by gmcal
You are correct. As long as GLOCK continues to pay the CA fees (Blackmail, protection money, payola), they may continue to sell any/all of their models currently on the CA approved list.

There I fixed it, isn't that better? :supergrin: ;) :upeyes:

[tbhracing]

Some people need to get some facts and stop being so ignorant. This may help-

What I know. Every gun manf. must apply to have their products sold in the state, thus "pay a fee". Then it gets tested. (drop test, etc...) Then the gun has a certified date its allowed to be sold in the state. Its a continuous cycle.

To back up what I am saying, click on the link below and select "Glock". Some of the dates of all the Glocks listed come up well into 2008. So it looks like Glock has submitted some products, paid some fees and got extentions. I count 15 models availible in 2008. (marked with a *)

Find it here- http://certguns.doj.ca.gov

See it here-

There are 46 matching records for Glock
The matching records list is sorted by Make
This list is valid for Thursday, April 19, 2007

Model Gun Type Barrel Length Caliber Exp Date

*39 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.3" .45 GAP 2/27/2008
26 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.46" 9mm 12/31/2007
26 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.46" 9mm 12/22/2007
27 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.46" .40 S&W 12/31/2007
27 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.46" .40 S&W 11/1/2007
33 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.46" .357 SIG 12/31/2007
33 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.46" .357 SIG 11/16/2007
39 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.46" .45 GAP 7/13/2007
29 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.78" 10mm 4/4/2008
29 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.78" 10mm 11/1/2007
30 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.78" .45 ACP 12/31/2007
30 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.78" .45 ACP 11/1/2007
36 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.78" .45 ACP 12/31/2007
36 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.78" .45 ACP 11/1/2007
*23C / Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.9" .40 S&W 3/6/2008
*19C / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4" 9mm 6/4/2008
*38 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4" .45 GAP 1/17/2008
19 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.02" 9mm 12/31/2007
19 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.02" 9mm 11/16/2007
23 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.02" .40 S&W 12/31/2007
*23 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.02" .40 S&W 4/25/2008
32 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.02" .357 SIG 12/31/2007
32 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.02" .357 SIG 11/1/2007
*32C / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.02" .357 SIG 4/17/2008
38 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.02" .45 GAP 7/13/2007
17 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.49" 9mm 12/31/2007
17 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.49" 9mm 11/1/2007
*17C / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.49" 9mm 1/9/2008
22 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.49" .40 S&W 12/31/2007
22 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.49" .40 S&W 11/16/2007
31 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.49" .357 SIG 12/31/2007
*31 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.49" .357 SIG 4/25/2008
*31C / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.49" .357 SIG 4/17/2008
*22 C / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.5" .40 S&W 2/13/2008
*G-37 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.5" .45 GAP 1/27/2008
G-37 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.5" .45 GAP 11/1/2007
*20C / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.6" 10mm 1/9/2008
21 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.6" .45 ACP 12/31/2007
21 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.6" .45 ACP 12/22/2007
*21C / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.6" .45 ACP 2/1/2008
20 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.60" 10mm 12/31/2007
20 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 4.60" 10mm 12/22/2007
*34 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 5.32" 9mm 2/1/2008
*34 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 5.32" 9mm 2/14/2008
35 / Steel, Polymer Pistol 5.32" .40 S&W 12/31/2007
35 OD / Steel, Polymer Pistol 5.32" .40 S&W 11/16/2007

[minuteman32]

If I were Mr Glock, if CA thought MY guns weren't safe for the citizens of the state, I wouldn't allow them to be sold to the government/LEO's of the state either. Ronnie Barrett has the right idea, IMHO.

[tbhracing]

Originally posted by minuteman32
If I were Mr Glock, if CA thought MY guns weren't safe for the citizens of the state, I wouldn't allow them to be sold to the government/LEO's of the state either. Ronnie Barrett has the right idea, IMHO.

DUDE? Did you read anything I wrote above? CALIFORNIA APPROVAL PENDS ON GLOCK APPLYING, NOT THE STATE. HELLO?!?! Look above, fifteen (that 15 for you simple types) Glocks have already been approved for the year 2008. That means California DOES think they are safe enough.

Please- When it comes to California issues, pull you head out of the sand.

[Bucky69]

you could always call california DOJ. Arent they the ones who have final say?

In reality, the United States Constituion should have the final say on all firearms. And it of course, does not single out any firearm for exclusion from individuals.

[B.Mauser]

Originally posted by minuteman32
If I were Mr Glock, if CA thought MY guns weren't safe for the citizens of the state, I wouldn't allow them to be sold to the government/LEO's of the state either. Ronnie Barrett has the right idea, IMHO.


I agree completely.


Barrett was the first thing I thought of when reading this.

I would like to see all the big gun manufacturers get together and boycott California.

[kcolg30]

If I move can I bring my AR-15 with the 100 round dual drums to Califuknia.

[Glocks&Ducs]

Originally posted by boukca
DUDE? Did you read anything I wrote above? CALIFORNIA APPROVAL PENDS ON GLOCK APPLYING, NOT THE STATE. HELLO?!?! Look above, fifteen (that 15 for you simple types) Glocks have already been approved for the year 2008. That means California DOES think they are safe enough.

Please- When it comes to California issues, pull you head out of the sand.

I think the confusion is coming from the new law passed in January of this year. It contains a passage about new gun models, submitted for CADOJ testing as of 2007, must contain a magazine disconnect or a manually activated safety( I can't remember which, or if it's both). So for instance, Glock makes the G40 and starts selling it this year. It is a new handgun model introduced on or after 2007. If it doesn't have the features that the new law requires, the gun can't be submitted for testing and subsequent approval for sale to the public, no matter who or how much they pay the state.

So the only reason the models you listed have been approved, is because they were originally introduced prior to 2007, and many of their variants were already approved anyway. Note that the 21SF is not on the list, and it probably won't be. It was introduced in 2007 and does not contain a magazine disconnect safety, or whatever the new requirement is.

Get it?


Just a note on how retarded California is though. They are actually going through a seperate process to approve OD models of the same model Glock. So just because the frame is a different color, Glock has to pay a "fee" in order for that gun to be tested and approved. Now that my friends, is extortion.

[minuteman32]

Originally posted by boukca
DUDE? Did you read anything I wrote above? CALIFORNIA APPROVAL PENDS ON GLOCK APPLYING, NOT THE STATE. HELLO?!?! Look above, fifteen (that 15 for you simple types) Glocks have already been approved for the year 2008. That means California DOES think they are safe enough.

Please- When it comes to California issues, pull you head out of the sand.

"DUDE" The point is that CA is messed up! If they would pull their heads out of their butts long enough, they would repeal the stupid laws they have that restrict access to "approved" guns (not to mention the evil 'black guns' or standard capacity mags ... read that "HIGH cap" for the socialist indoctrinated).
Glock shouldn't HAVE to submit guns to the state for testing. They already have thousands of them in the holsters of thousands of LEO's. No manufacturer should have to.
Of course, I guess the CA Legislature may be right, maybe the folks out there aren't trustworthy enough to be able to handle the freedom that comes from un (or @ least less) regulated commerce. I don't know!:supergrin: :tongueout:

[SacM5]

I got this information from my FFL. He said that if you look at the DOJ website Glock's licensing will expire at the end of 2007 and he was under the impression they woudl not be renewing their license to sell in CA because CA was requiring them to alter the safeties on all models. Maybe you are correct, maybe it is just on the new models. Hopefully for everyone's sake that is the case.

Originally posted by Kal El in SLO
for starters....where are you getting your information? i would like to know.

i was under the impression that glock could continue to sell their older models in california.....but after januaray 2007 couldnt sell any NEW models if they didnt have a mag release safety. hence the non-sale of the G21SF in cali. of course...i could be totally wrong. that's why im wondering where you got your info from. :)

[gary newport]

Originally posted by Glocks&Ducs
I think the confusion is coming from the new law passed in January of this year. It contains a passage about new gun models, submitted for CADOJ testing as of 2007, must contain a magazine disconnect or a manually activated safety( I can't remember which, or if it's both). So for instance, Glock makes the G40 and starts selling it this year. It is a new handgun model introduced on or after 2007. If it doesn't have the features that the new law requires, the gun can't be submitted for testing and subsequent approval for sale to the public, no matter who or how much they pay the state.

So the only reason the models you listed have been approved, is because they were originally introduced prior to 2007, and many of their variants were already approved anyway. Note that the 21SF is not on the list, and it probably won't be. It was introduced in 2007 and does not contain a magazine disconnect safety, or whatever the new requirement is.

Get it?


Just a note on how retarded California is though. They are actually going through a seperate process to approve OD models of the same model Glock. So just because the frame is a different color, Glock has to pay a "fee" in order for that gun to be tested and approved. Now that my friends, is extortion.

As of 2007, both a magazine disconnect and a loaded-chamber indicator are required on all NEW pistol models submitted for "safety" testing by the DOJ. As I understand the stupid new law, models which were previously on the list may be submitted without having both "features"...unless they happen to be a different color! :upeyes:

[SacM5]

That is good to hear, but from a praticality standpoint makes absolutely no sense. So i fyou have a gun that is considered UNSAFE by CA it is okay if it was registered previously but new guns that are considered UNSAFE are not okay. Makes a ton of sense. GOOD WORK CA!

Originally posted by gary newport
As of 2007, both a magazine disconnect and a loaded-chamber indicator are required on all NEW pistols submitted for "safety" testing by the DOJ. As I understand the stupid new law, models which were previously on the list may be submitted without having both "features".

[dsg2003gt]

Originally posted by Bucky69
In reality, the United States Constituion should have the final say on all firearms. And it of course, does not single out any firearm for exclusion from individuals.

yes, but we are talking about Kalifornia. The Constitution does not apply there.

[Kal El in SLO]

I would say....you dont have to worry. I think that every model that is currently being sold in California, will continue to be sold in 2008.

just dont expect to see the G21SF or any other new model coming to california.

[Bowtie]

Originally posted by minuteman32
[B maybe the folks out there aren't trustworthy enough to be able to handle the freedom that comes from un (or @ least less) regulated commerce. I don't know!:supergrin: :tongueout: [/B]
No need to badmouth the ones who live here.We dont all come across like boukca

[Merkavaboy]

Originally posted by Kal El in SLO
I would say....you dont have to worry. I think that every model that is currently being sold in California, will continue to be sold in 2008.

just dont expect to see the G21SF or any other new model coming to california.

You are 100% CORRECT.

ANY new model semi-automatic handgun that was not on CA. DOJ's "Not Unsafe" list prior to Jan. 1st, 2007 will be required to have both magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator before they can even be considered for inclusion on the "Not Unsafe" list.

Unless GLOCK bribes the DOJ, their new G-21SF will not ever be sold here in Commiefornia. ALL GLOCK pistols (and every other pistol) that is currently on the "Not Unsafe" list for sale will remain available for purchase in the future in CA. UNLESS the manufacturers fail to keep the pistol(s) on the "Not Unsafe" list. Once it is dropped off the list, then it's gone. They will not be able to have the pistol(s) re-listed unless they improve it with mag disconnect & loaded chamber indicator.

[Juliet Lima]

Alright, let me just interject a question semi-off the topic here. Say CA did somehow disallow Glock from selling in CA, or Glock decided to stop selling in CA...what happens?? Let's just concede that as a big "IF". Still, what happens?

Do all Glocks now become illegal? Or is it like "hi-cap" mags, where if you had one pre-ban then it is alright to own? Just wondering if stocking up on Glocks would bite someone in the butt a year or two down the road when they may have to get rid of them. I, for one, am wondering because I plan on buying a new Glock (G30 or G36) in 2 weeks.

Of course i'm just wondering what peoples opinions on this are.

[adamtheman]

Originally posted by Kal El in SLO
I would say....you dont have to worry. I think that every model that is currently being sold in California, will continue to be sold in 2008.

just dont expect to see the G21SF or any other new model coming to california.

As I've stated before, don't be so sure about the G21SF.

[Mark9Fogger]

G21SFs are sold here in Kalifornia to LEOs for duty and off duty use. So I had better get one quick before that privilege gets yanked, too. :upeyes:

[Kal El in SLO]

As I've stated before, don't be so sure about the G21SF.

I've talked to reps at GLOCK and they assured me that the G21SF would NOT be coming to California.

I would be extremely happy if I am wrong. :)

[Mark9Fogger]

Originally posted by Kal El in SLO
I've talked to reps at GLOCK and they assured me that the G21SF would NOT be coming to California.

I would be extremely happy if I am wrong. :)
If you want to be extremely happy AND you are a Kalifornia certified LEO, click here (http://www.lcaction.com/ikorb.php?func=catalog&category_id=142&product_id=1024). :banana:

[Short Cut]

Originally posted by SacM5
That is good to hear, but from a praticality standpoint makes absolutely no sense. So i fyou have a gun that is considered UNSAFE by CA it is okay if it was registered previously but new guns that are considered UNSAFE are not okay. Makes a ton of sense. GOOD WORK CA!

Trying to apply logic to CA gun laws is pointless and will only result in a headache.

Several of you nailed it. The mag disconnect and loaded chamber indicator are requirements for NEWLY submitted pistols. Those already on the approved list will remain on the list as long as the manufacturer pays a yearly fee.

[Merkavaboy]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kal El in SLO
I would say....you dont have to worry. I think that every model that is currently being sold in California, will continue to be sold in 2008.

just dont expect to see the G21SF or any other new model coming to california.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by adamtheman
As I've stated before, don't be so sure about the G21SF.

Sorry adamtheman. I noted that you mentioned that once before. But I'm not going to hold my breath. I hope you're right and the rest of us are wrong, at least for the sake of those who want to get the new G-21SF. I doubt that I'd buy one since I already have my .45ACP gun (Satin nickel Colt Combat Commander), and I like my G-19's & G-26 too much to put them aside as my carry guns.

:wavey:

[Merkavaboy]

Originally posted by Juliet Lima
Alright, let me just interject a question semi-off the topic here. Say CA did somehow disallow Glock from selling in CA, or Glock decided to stop selling in CA...what happens?? Let's just concede that as a big "IF". Still, what happens?

Do all Glocks now become illegal? Or is it like "hi-cap" mags, where if you had one pre-ban then it is alright to own? Just wondering if stocking up on Glocks would bite someone in the butt a year or two down the road when they may have to get rid of them. I, for one, am wondering because I plan on buying a new Glock (G30 or G36) in 2 weeks.

Of course i'm just wondering what peoples opinions on this are.

No, they will not become illegal.

Suppose for instance GLOCK fails to renew their G-17 as being an "Not Unsafe" handgun (they drop the ball and fail to cough up the money to the State and DOJ removes the G-17 from the list). All those G-17's already in the state will still be 100% legal to own. It just means that from the date that the G-17 was removed from the "Not Unsafe" list, no new G-17's can ever be brought into the state for retail sales. That's it. No more. Period. Those G-17's that are still in the inventory of retail gun stores would become illegal to sell (since they are no longer on the list and the gun store now technically owns the guns). This is why when you go into gun shops they sometimes have a "for law enforcement sale only" section. Those guns are the guns that the store owned at the time the "unsafe" gun laws went into effect and those are the guns that are not on the list and thus cannot be sold to citizens. But if someone still wanted a G-17, they'd be able to buy one used from another Californian. The gun stores can do "consignment" sales since the gun store is not the owner of the gun itself, but just the facilitator of a private party transaction between two individuals.

Clear as mud?

Yeah, I know. It's time to get the H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks out of Kommiefornia. Especially if this stupid new legislation about having to have background checks to buy ammo and being limited to one single box of 50 rounds of any one type of ammo per day law passes. :upeyes:

[SacM5]

If that is the case my reloading skills make come in handy...

Originally posted by Merkavaboy
No, they will not become illegal.

Suppose for instance GLOCK fails to renew their G-17 as being an "Not Unsafe" handgun (they drop the ball and fail to cough up the money to the State and DOJ removes the G-17 from the list). All those G-17's already in the state will still be 100% legal to own. It just means that from the date that the G-17 was removed from the "Not Unsafe" list, no new G-17's can ever be brought into the state for retail sales. That's it. No more. Period. Those G-17's that are still in the inventory of retail gun stores would become illegal to sell (since they are no longer on the list and the gun store now technically owns the guns). This is why when you go into gun shops they sometimes have a "for law enforcement sale only" section. Those guns are the guns that the store owned at the time the "unsafe" gun laws went into effect and those are the guns that are not on the list and thus cannot be sold to citizens. But if someone still wanted a G-17, they'd be able to buy one used from another Californian. The gun stores can do "consignment" sales since the gun store is not the owner of the gun itself, but just the facilitator of a private party transaction between two individuals.

Clear as mud?

Yeah, I know. It's time to get the H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks out of Kommiefornia. Especially if this stupid new legislation about having to have background checks to buy ammo and being limited to one single box of 50 rounds of any one type of ammo per day law passes. :upeyes:

[adamtheman]

Originally posted by Merkavaboy
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kal El in SLO
I would say....you dont have to worry. I think that every model that is currently being sold in California, will continue to be sold in 2008.

just dont expect to see the G21SF or any other new model coming to california.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sorry adamtheman. I noted that you mentioned that once before. But I'm not going to hold my breath. I hope you're right and the rest of us are wrong, at least for the sake of those who want to get the new G-21SF. I doubt that I'd buy one since I already have my .45ACP gun (Satin nickel Colt Combat Commander), and I like my G-19's & G-26 too much to put them aside as my carry guns.

:wavey:

PM sent.

[gary newport]

Originally posted by adamtheman
PM sent.

Can I get one too? (A PM, not a 21 SF!)

Actually, if Glock outfits the 21 SF with a magazine disconnect, that would be a turn-off for me. Others would probably not be bothered by it. In any case, I'm quite happy with my GAP Glocks; they fit!

Perhaps the biggest losers under this stupid law will be the 1911 fans. If Wilson/Brown/Para/Baer/et al. release a SLIGHTLY different model, it won't be allowed to be sold here unless a 1911 mag disconnect is part of the deal. Somehow, I can't see 1911 fans rushing to buy a 1911 with a mag disconnect. :upeyes:

[adamtheman]

PM sent.

Originally posted by gary newport
Can I get one too? (A PM, not a 21 SF!)

Actually, if Glock outfits the 21 SF with a magazine disconnect, that would be a turn-off for me. Others would probably not be bothered by it. In any case, I'm quite happy with my GAP Glocks; they fit!

Perhaps the biggest losers under this stupid law will be the 1911 fans. If Wilson/Brown/Para/Baer/et al. release a SLIGHTLY different model, it won't be allowed to be sold here unless a 1911 mag disconnect is part of the deal. Somehow, I can't see 1911 fans rushing to buy a 1911 with a mag disconnect. :upeyes:

[DanMartin]

Calm down boys.

[klmmicro]

Originally posted by gary newport
Can I get one too? (A PM, not a 21 SF!)

Actually, if Glock outfits the 21 SF with a magazine disconnect, that would be a turn-off for me. Others would probably not be bothered by it. In any case, I'm quite happy with my GAP Glocks; they fit!

Perhaps the biggest losers under this stupid law will be the 1911 fans. If Wilson/Brown/Para/Baer/et al. release a SLIGHTLY different model, it won't be allowed to be sold here unless a 1911 mag disconnect is part of the deal. Somehow, I can't see 1911 fans rushing to buy a 1911 with a mag disconnect. :upeyes:

I do have a question about this, how does the mag disconnect make the pistol safer?

Also, I doubt that the major players in the 1911 market are going to let their pistols lapse. According to 2 FFLs I spoke with, pistols already on the roster will continue to be available as long as the manufacturers keep the lines "current" with the DOJ. If they let the pistol slip, then it would have to be re-certified and that is when the new trash would have have to be engineered into the design.

This applies to Glock, H&K, Sig and all the makes and models.

[Glocks&Ducs]

Originally posted by DanMartin
Calm down boys.

I am calm, I don't live in Commifornia anymore.:banana: