So I find a letter from the DOJ in my mailbox [Archive]

smogcity

12-08-2008, 10:21 AM

On Saturday I open the mailbox and i see a letter fro the DOJ :eek:

It appears the Ambi/rail glock 21sf that I may or may not own is on the AG's radar..

If im reading it correctly this is a voluntary "recall". Opinions anyone??

ETA: the pdf of the letter is too big to post myself, I emailed it to ivanimal and kestrell to post on this thread

Anthonysmanifesto

12-08-2008, 10:24 AM

On Saturday I open the mailbox and i see a letter fro the DOJ :eek:

It appears the Ambi/rail glock 21sf that I may or may not own is on the AG's radar..

If im reading it correctly this is a voluntary "recall". Opinions anyone??

ETA: the pdf is too big to post myself, I'll try emailing to a mod to post

need more info.

sorensen440

12-08-2008, 10:29 AM

The doj is trying to issue a recall?

Two Shots

12-08-2008, 10:34 AM

And they'll refund your money?

Kestryll

12-08-2008, 10:34 AM

Let's see if I can get the Attachment to work..

Hmm... not being cooperative...

Now let's see...

yellowfin

12-08-2008, 10:35 AM

Demand an explanation as to why your tax dollars are being wasted on this useless effort.

smogcity

12-08-2008, 10:38 AM

Thanks kestryll!

Slayer

12-08-2008, 10:46 AM

Tell em you like it the way it is and they can kick rocks in a mine field!

geeknow

12-08-2008, 10:47 AM

Glock shipped out some guns to california with ambi-slide release. these were mis marked (i think the cases) as having the standard slide release. Glock got in touch with owners, recalled the gun, and made the change over to standard slide release free of charge. sounds like they gave the list of those they werent able to contact to the DOJ. good to see they are so helpful ;)

Anthonysmanifesto

12-08-2008, 10:47 AM

Sounds like the comsumer is not obligated to do anything. but DOJ wouldn't mind if , at yoru expense, you shipped the handgun to the manufacturer to swap out your ambidextrous mag release frame for one that is standard mag release...

thats an interesting little FYI for you file cabinet.

geeknow

12-08-2008, 10:48 AM

Tell em you like it the way it is and they can kick rocks in a mine field!

cant (and stay legit). the ambi slide release model is not on the california approved list.

Anthonysmanifesto

12-08-2008, 10:49 AM

cant (and stay legit). the ambi slide release model is not on the california approved list.

doesnt mean you cant posses it. Just means dealers can sel it to civilians.

Slayer

12-08-2008, 10:50 AM

cant (and stay legit). the ambi slide release model is not on the california approved list.

The letter said the retrofitting was optional

nobody_special

12-08-2008, 10:51 AM

cant (and stay legit). the ambi slide release model is not on the california approved list.
So? Purchasing and possessing a handgun not on the roster is perfectly legal.

geeknow

12-08-2008, 10:53 AM

[QUOTE=Anthonysmanifesto;1764747]Sounds like the comsumer is not obligated to do anything. but DOJ wouldn't mind if , at yoru expense, you shipped the handgun to the manufacturer to swap out your ambidextrous mag release frame for one that is standard mag release...QUOTE]

Are you sure that the consumer is not obligated? I wondered about that. Seemed to me that, courtesy of the OP's letter from the DOJ, he has now been "officially" notified that a gun (that he may or may not own) is NOT on the list. Since he has been notified (granted after the fact), is compliance now mandatory?

I am interested to see how this plays out.

sorensen440

12-08-2008, 10:54 AM

so they want you to voluntarily ship it at your expense and then have it shipped to an ffl before you get it back?
Would you have to wait 10 days??

hawk1

12-08-2008, 10:55 AM

Nothing in that letter says you must comply with their offering.
It does say you may not be able to sell it to a dealer, but why would you? The dealer wouldn't give you full value anyways. Just PPT it to someone else.

DOJ FUD!...:p

sorensen440

12-08-2008, 10:56 AM

So? Purchasing and possessing a handgun not on the roster is perfectly legal.

You can purchase and possess of the list
Leo's for example are allowed to buy off the list and are allowed to sell it to joe public
[QUOTE=Anthonysmanifesto;1764747]Sounds like the comsumer is not obligated to do anything. but DOJ wouldn't mind if , at yoru expense, you shipped the handgun to the manufacturer to swap out your ambidextrous mag release frame for one that is standard mag release...QUOTE]

Are you sure that the consumer is not obligated? I wondered about that. Seemed to me that, courtesy of the OP's letter from the DOJ, he has now been "officially" notified that a gun (that he may or may not own) is NOT on the list. Since he has been notified (granted after the fact), is compliance now mandatory?

I am interested to see how this plays out.
It said voluntary

smogcity

12-08-2008, 10:56 AM

geeknow

12-08-2008, 10:59 AM

So? Purchasing and possessing a handgun not on the roster is perfectly legal.

Yes, but purchasing a handgun not on the roster requires different steps than purchasing one that is on the roster.

According to that letter, the OP bought a gun that was later found to be NOT on the roster. So, the only way to have bought that gun would be to find a roster exempt owner and complete a PPT.

The question remains as to the ability of the DOJ to force compliance by the consumer in a situation where he no control or responsibility of the product shipped and has no control or responsibility in the transferrence of ownership.

AJAX22

12-08-2008, 11:06 AM

"To whom it may concern,
I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request at this time. In the future please try to avoid engaging in such rectal-cranial inversion.

Thank you,

Signed,

Proud Glock owner"

smogcity

12-08-2008, 11:11 AM

Hijacking my own thread;)

What do the greater minds than mine here think about this:

The calguns foundation files suit using the americans with disabilities act (or something like that) charging the DOJ's refusal to "reasonably accommodate" my disability (left handed) in their refusal to let me posess this ambi safety glock (that I may or may not own)

Just wondering...:D

tcrpe

12-08-2008, 11:51 AM

smogcity

12-08-2008, 11:58 AM

'07 i think

bwiese

12-08-2008, 12:03 PM

Fjold

12-08-2008, 12:08 PM

Slayer

12-08-2008, 12:12 PM

Tell them to pack sand.

Also why is it in the letter that Glock has to send the pistol back to a CA FFL dealer?

You are allowed by law to send your handgun directly to Glock and they can ship it right back to you.

They cant ship it back to you direct if the serial # has changed. I'm assuming they are going to swap the frame...

Anthonysmanifesto

12-08-2008, 12:13 PM

not to split hairs- but many of the quotes attributed to me on this thread or of another poster - do to an html mixup or something.

enjoy the glock and thanks for sharing the letter with us.

bwiese

12-08-2008, 12:14 PM

Also why is it in the letter that Glock has to send the
pistol back to a CA FFL dealer?

You are allowed by law to send your handgun directly
to Glock and they can ship it right back to you.

They cant ship it back to you direct if the serial # has changed.
I'm assuming they are going to swap the frame...

Ordinarily, Fjold yes - but... this ain't really just a 'repair'.

This is a new model and likely with new serial#, therefore it's a new gun requiring DROSing.

Even if Glock were to keep the same serial#, it'd be a different model and a conceptually different gun.

It's a bit different than if your G21 frame cracked, you sent it in, Glock destroyed it, took the number out of their ATF logbook, built a new one w/same serial#, reentered it into their logbook and supplied you with that new frame.

smogcity

12-08-2008, 12:16 PM

Ok, folks, here it is:

You do NOT have to do this mod (much different than Walther P22 AW threaded
bbl drama).

You CAN retain your unmodified, as-purchased G21SF-ambi. Enjoy it: shoot it like
you stole it, mod it till the cows come home, whatever...

If you own a G21SF-ambi, you CAN'T sell it to a CA FFL.

If you own a G21SF-ambi, you CAN sell it via PPT inside CA.

If you own a G21SF-ambi, you CAN sell it to a non-CA FFL.

It's significant this letter included nonadversarial language w/regard to Glock.

It's significant who did not sign this letter (given who wrote SB15 law).

Thanks Bill, thats what I thought. I just wanted to run it up the flag pole for the calguns double check.

The non adversarial language and who did not sign, what do you infer from that?

I was joking when I asked about suing under the american with disabilities act, but what about that as a legal premise:
A lefty buys a legal ambi gun
Gets letter that says he must exchange for right hand safety
Sues to force "resonable accomadation" of his disabilty (left handed)
Any legs on that?

ke6guj

12-08-2008, 12:17 PM

not to split hairs- but many of the quotes attributed to me on this thread or of another poster - do to an html mixup or something.

Yup, geeknow messed up the board code in one of his posts and never went back and fixed it. That is one of my pet peeves, seeing people post incorrectly and never fixing it. Do they even look at their post after they submit it?

383green

12-08-2008, 12:23 PM

I think that Glock should send any returned & exchanged pistols to freakshow10mm for proper disposal... :D

bandogg

12-08-2008, 01:26 PM

Wonder whats going to happen to the FFL that sold it to him?:confused:

What if the DOJ denies you next DROS because you didnt send it in for remanufacture job?

bwiese

12-08-2008, 01:32 PM

I think that Glock should send any returned & exchanged pistols to freakshow10mm for proper disposal...

:) <BSEG> ambi-NRFs!

Wonder whats going to happen to the FFL that sold it to him?:confused:

Apparently nothing. The tone of the letter indicates this is a low-key way to resolve this problem.

What if the DOJ denies you next DROS because you didnt send it in for remanufacture job?

They can't. Didn't you read the letter? There's no requirement you 'fix' it.

If you do sell it, however, it can only be thru a PPT in CA.

Please look at my bulleted list of can-do's/can't-do's several posts above this one.

Fate

12-08-2008, 01:37 PM

It's fun seeing the DOJ toothlessly beg, isn't it?

bandogg

12-08-2008, 01:37 PM

I did read it all. They can't force him to return it because him did nothing illegal. I was just thinking maybe DOJ can just blacklist him. If he fails to comply

sorensen440

12-08-2008, 01:41 PM

The tone of the letter indicates this is a low-key way to resolve this problem.

Kinda leads one to wonder if they were the ones at fault

DRM6000

12-08-2008, 01:43 PM

i would line the bird cage with the letter.

bohoki

12-08-2008, 01:57 PM

Ordinarily, Fjold yes - but... this ain't really just a 'repair'.

This is a new model and likely with new serial#, therefore it's a new gun requiring DROSing.

Even if Glock were to keep the same serial#, it'd be a different model and a conceptually different gun.

It's a bit different than if your G21 frame cracked, you sent it in, Glock destroyed it, took the number out of their ATF logbook, built a new one w/same serial#, reentered it into their logbook and supplied you with that new frame.

they wont do that i wish they would but i checked and they wont duplicate a serial even if they destroy the old one

Fjold

12-08-2008, 01:59 PM

Who pays for the DROS from the dealer for the new gun?

hoffmang

12-08-2008, 02:03 PM

Who pays for the DROS from the dealer for the new gun?

DOJ BoF is comping it.

-Gene

Captain Evilstomper

12-08-2008, 02:06 PM

Yes, but purchasing a handgun not on the roster requires different steps than purchasing one that is on the roster.

According to that letter, the OP bought a gun that was later found to be NOT on the roster. So, the only way to have bought that gun would be to find a roster exempt owner and complete a PPT.

The question remains as to the ability of the DOJ to force compliance by the consumer in a situation where he no control or responsibility of the product shipped and has no control or responsibility in the transferrence of ownership.

i'm thinking if anything the op should not have to pay for something, that was the fault of the manufacturer, and was purchased in good faith... but what i wantto know is is the state going to sue glock for failing to comply with their import rules?

gbp

12-08-2008, 03:33 PM

The first sentence of the last paragraph says it all

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd230/gbp98/DOJLtr2.jpg

I'd leave it alone

Mute

12-08-2008, 03:35 PM

This is another sign of how asinine this whole rostering business really is. So much so that even the BOF is only asking very nicely for voluntary compliance. I think they don't want to give anymore ammunition to those whom they know are chomping at the bit to challenge this stupid law when Nordyke opens the door. Seriously. How idiotic is it to declare a gun "unsafe" just because the mag release is ambidextrous as opposed to operating "normally?" Not to mention allowing LEOs to purchase "unsafe" guns.

tommyid1

12-08-2008, 03:40 PM

So if i wanted one of the new xdm's in 40 or 9mm i could buy it out of state and bring it back? or have a friend who is an officer that owns one sell it to me? per the doj's wording. ca ffls cant sell them.

gbp

12-08-2008, 03:50 PM

Forgot to add:
The last sentance of the same paragraph is of no consequence either as off list handguns are sold FTF PPT all the time

Mute

12-08-2008, 03:51 PM

You can't just buy it out of state. It will have to be transferred from out of state to a CA FFL (which means the gun has to be on the roster). A LEO friend can sell you one but he can't buy one with the express purpose of re-selling it to you, although if REALLY doesn't like it, it's perfectly legal for him to PPT it to you. Stay tuned to this thread for a possible way around this lunacy:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=136084

tommyid1

12-08-2008, 04:19 PM

god i hope this ends soon.

HowardW56

12-08-2008, 05:03 PM

[quote=Anthonysmanifesto;1764747]Sounds like the comsumer is not obligated to do anything. but DOJ wouldn't mind if , at yoru expense, you shipped the handgun to the manufacturer to swap out your ambidextrous mag release frame for one that is standard mag release...QUOTE]

Are you sure that the consumer is not obligated? I wondered about that. Seemed to me that, courtesy of the OP's letter from the DOJ, he has now been "officially" notified that a gun (that he may or may not own) is NOT on the list. Since he has been notified (granted after the fact), is compliance now mandatory?

I am interested to see how this plays out.

The letter cleary states that it is not a crime to posess the gun...

bwiese

12-08-2008, 05:10 PM

Again:

You aren't obligated to do anything if you find yourself to have a G21SF-ambi.

Should you find yourself with a Glock G21SF-ambi, you've done nothing illegal.

Nobody is after you. Honest. There was no crime and noone's saying you
committed one.

DOJ BoF and Glock have provided you with an outlet should you really want a
Rostered handgun you thought you were buying; you'll have to re-DROS, buy
DOJ comps these new fees, and you'd only be out postage to Glock and the
processsing/shipping/reDROS wait;

The DOJ has advised you, in essence, only that your gun is not sellable to a CA
FFL [and is thus only PPTable within California]

That's it.

bohoki

12-08-2008, 05:31 PM

mean a gun dealer cannot have an unsafe hand gun sold to them?

what about a ppt to the owner for his personal collection?

Bad Voodoo

12-08-2008, 05:37 PM

It's fun seeing the DOJ toothlessly beg, isn't it?

I sure enjoyed it. Hope that doesn't make me a bad person or something. :D

bwiese

12-08-2008, 05:37 PM

mean a gun dealer cannot have an
unsafe hand gun sold to them?

No - that CA dealer indeed could sell it to/thru an out of state FFL, or to a LEO, or to another CA FFL again for the same limitations.

You'll find that most CA FFLs don't wanna load themselves down with inventory they can't move, as they're not usually in the biz of providing guns to outta staters.

what about a ppt to the owner for his personal collection?

That's a PPT not to his shop inventory but to himself.

bohoki

12-08-2008, 06:03 PM

No - that CA dealer indeed could sell it to/thru an out of state FFL, or to a LEO, or to another CA FFL again for the same limitations.

You'll find that most CA FFLs don't wanna load themselves down with inventory they can't move, as they're not usually in the biz of providing guns to outta staters.

That's a PPT not to his shop inventory but to himself.

hmm when ever i see an official doj letter and they use the word may not to mean you cannot
not that the may was like the meaning in maybe

as in maybe a ffl dealer wont buy it

so what i get from the letter now is they are trying to protect the consumer because some value is technically lost as the gun cannot be sold by a ffl dealer

how thoughtful of them to be so concerned with our wallets

ldivinag

12-08-2008, 06:07 PM

kermit315

12-08-2008, 06:15 PM

They cant just blacklist him.......that would just be begging to be sued.

Meplat

12-08-2008, 06:28 PM

I and, I assume, a lot of others here have a lot of off list handguns. I even have one on my CCW. It can be transferred to another private party THROUGH an an FFL. It can even be transferred TO an FFL but only for his personal use, not for resale. Don't even think about sending it back.:43:

[QUOTE=Anthonysmanifesto;1764747]Sounds like the comsumer is not obligated to do anything. but DOJ wouldn't mind if , at yoru expense, you shipped the handgun to the manufacturer to swap out your ambidextrous mag release frame for one that is standard mag release...QUOTE]

Are you sure that the consumer is not obligated? I wondered about that. Seemed to me that, courtesy of the OP's letter from the DOJ, he has now been "officially" notified that a gun (that he may or may not own) is NOT on the list. Since he has been notified (granted after the fact), is compliance now mandatory?

I am interested to see how this plays out.

Ford8N

12-08-2008, 06:33 PM

The first sentence of the last paragraph says it all

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd230/gbp98/DOJLtr2.jpg

I'd leave it alone

So the way I read that paragraph written by the DOJ, a person could buy an AK pistol receiver or any off roster pistol off the GunBroker and just have it transfered by an FFL. The FFL didn't sell it, just transfered it. You bought it from someone else. Is that the way it works?

jamesob

12-08-2008, 06:41 PM

bwiese

12-08-2008, 07:00 PM

i dont think ffl's can transfer a non rostered handguns for themselves, they don't have an exemption.

An FFL can certainly find a handgun someone in CA owns and can arrange for it to be PPT'd to him. His FFL status does require him to give up a right like this that the rest of us have.

Meplat

12-08-2008, 07:15 PM

There is a difference between a licence holder and his dealership. The license holder is also a private party and as such can buy from another private party just like anyone else. All FFLs keep two books, the bound book lists arms they hold in inventory and the other lists their private collection.

[QUOTE=Meplat;1766233]I and, I assume, a lot of others here have a lot of off list handguns. I even have one on my CCW. It can be transferred to another private party THROUGH an an FFL. It can even be transferred TO an FFL but only for his personal use, not for resale. Don't even think about sending it back.:43:.

i dont think ffl's can transfer a non rostered handguns for themselves, they don't have an exemption.

jamesob

12-08-2008, 07:25 PM

An FFL can certainly find a handgun someone in CA owns and can arrange for it to be PPT'd to him. His FFL status does require him to give up a right like this that the rest of us have.oh i knew that, i thought we were talking about a dealer buying a new non rostered handgun then transfering it to himself. i guess i didn't read back fer enough.

tazmanian devil dog

12-08-2008, 07:31 PM

I got one of those too. Scared the pie outta me till I read it. What a bunch of malarky!! I ain't retrofittin' my gun. I plan on keepin' it.

FortCourageArmory

12-08-2008, 07:38 PM

There is a difference between a licence holder and his dealership. The license holder is also a private party and as such can buy from another private party just like anyone else. All FFLs keep two books, the bound book lists arms they hold in inventory and the other lists their private collection.

I dont think ffl's can transfer a non rostered handguns for themselves, they don't have an exemption.
Your first part is wrong. I do not maintain two sets of books. I am not required to. I have an Aquisition & Disposition Book that tracks all firearms in and out of my FFL. If I transfer a gun to myself, it doesn't....nor is it required to....go into a seperate book. You'd have to ask yourself, "is an ordinary citizen required to keep a book on their guns?" I, apart from my FFL, have the same rights as everyone else in this regard.

The second part (bolded) is correct though. I can't transfer a non-rostered gun to myself unless it's under PPT rules.

383green

12-08-2008, 07:43 PM

An FFL can certainly find a handgun someone in CA owns and can arrange for it to be PPT'd to him. His FFL status does require him to give up a right like this that the rest of us have.

Ok, so an FFL may purchase a non-rostered handgun for his private collection from another individual who already owns it in the state. It's just a PPT, and the fact that the FFL is both one of the private parties and the transferring FFL is not important.

On the other hand, it seems to me that if a non-rostered handgun is in the FFL's store inventory, he cannot transfer it to his private collection since that would be no different than any other in-state sale. Is this correct?

Now, if the FFL has a non-rostered handgun in his store inventory, can he disassemble it and then transfer the frame to his private collection, since it was determined in other threads that a stripped frame is not considered to be a handgun under the handgun roster law?

bwiese

12-08-2008, 07:47 PM

Ok, so an FFL may purchase a non-rostered handgun for his private collection from another individual who already owns it in the state. It's just a PPT, and the fact that the FFL is both one of the private parties and the transferring FFL is not important.

Yup.

On the other hand, it seems to me that if a non-rostered handgun is in the FFL's store inventory, he cannot transfer it to his private collection since that would be no different than any other in-state sale. Is this correct?

Yup. That's why there were so many "dead guns" at many FFLs - in the "special case" (all marked with "LE Only" red tags) back in 2001. And many of these FFLs weren't really set up to do GunBroker, etc. out of state sales.

if the FFL has a non-rostered handgun in his store inventory, can he disassemble it and then transfer the frame to his private collection, since it was determined in other threads that a stripped frame is not considered to be a handgun under the handgun roster law?

Yup. He as a person/individual, can buy an eligible, nonprohibited firearm. I am unsure these days how a CA FFL dealer gets a new gun for himself (i.e, a personal gun). Worst case, Joe Blow (FFL-but-we-don't-care) just 4473+DROSes himself a NRF from Joe's Guns.

383green

12-08-2008, 07:56 PM

Yup. He as a person/individual, can buy an eligible, nonprohibited firearm. I am unsure these days how a CA FFL dealer gets a new gun for himself (i.e, a personal gun). Worst case, Joe Blow (FFL-but-we-don't-care) just 4473+DROSes himself a NRF from Joe's Guns.

Does it naturally follow that in "two weeks", CA FFLs might be able to contemplate selling off the stripped frames of their "special case" non-rostered handguns in-state, and coincidentally also giving the buyers a paper bag full of free spare parts with each purchase?

hoffmang

12-08-2008, 08:02 PM

Does it naturally follow that in "two weeks", CA FFLs might be able to contemplate selling off the stripped frames of their "special case" non-rostered handguns in-state, and coincidentally also giving the buyers a paper bag full of free spare parts with each purchase?

Basically.

-Gene

383green

12-08-2008, 08:06 PM

Basically.

That aspect of the other thread on NRF importation had not occurred to me. It seemed too good to be true when the light went off in my head a short while ago. With your confirmation, I'm once again having trouble breathing... I think I'll step away from the keyboard and take a short nap now! :eek:

P.S.: If this aspect is something that we should not discuss openly today, just say so and I'll edit my posts.

GMONEY

12-08-2008, 08:06 PM

I think my 21sf with pic rail and extra mag release just went up in value! :)

Captain Evilstomper

12-08-2008, 08:07 PM

what are the qualifications for a 'safe' handgun anyway?
why is it 'unsafe' to have an ambi mag release?

Salty

12-08-2008, 08:19 PM

Since when was it required to get a background check for an upgrade / repair of a firearm? Once you own it, you own it (as far as I know).

tazmanian devil dog

12-08-2008, 08:35 PM

DOJ IS full of FUD!!!!

artherd

12-08-2008, 11:11 PM

Since when was it required to get a background check for an upgrade / repair of a firearm? Once you own it, you own it (as far as I know).

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/legrinfo.php

lehn20

12-08-2008, 11:23 PM

The letter is only a suggestion. Dont pay attention to it!.

Jpach

12-08-2008, 11:34 PM

Oh thank God, the DOJ is offering the "opportunity to have a background check at no charge!" Gee you guys are lucky. Oh and if these non-rostered pistols are so unsafe to the point where the .gov must approve of them before FFLs sell them to the public, then why wouldnt they kick people's doors down and MAKE them swap the gun for the rostered "not unsafe" model?

The Director

12-09-2008, 08:47 AM

Man, I'm glad that thing didn't go off and kill dozens of people since it's not on the "not unsafe" list.:rolleyes:

ke6guj

12-09-2008, 12:44 PM

what are the qualifications for a 'safe' handgun anyway?
why is it 'unsafe' to have an ambi mag release?

You have to look at it from the opposite directions. All handguns are considered "unsafe" unless they have passed the drop-tests. At that point, it is considered "not unsafe". And since the ambi-mag release model was not tested/listed on the Roster of "not unsafe" handguns, then it must be unsafe.

Since when was it required to get a background check for an upgrade / repair of a firearm? Once you own it, you own it (as far as I know).For a normal repair or upgrade of a firearm that you own, you don't need a new background check done. But in this case, Glock is replacing the frame with a new frame, and therefore is not a repair/upgrade, but is a replacement with a new serial number. In that case, new gun = new DROS.

bohoki

12-09-2008, 05:56 PM

You have to look at it from the opposite directions. All handguns are considered "unsafe" unless they have passed the drop-tests. At that point, it is considered "not unsafe". And since the ambi-mag release model was not tested/listed on the Roster of "not unsafe" handguns, then it must be unsafe.

For a normal repair or upgrade of a firearm that you own, you don't need a new background check done. But in this case, Glock is replacing the frame with a new frame, and therefore is not a repair/upgrade, but is a replacement with a new serial number. In that case, new gun = new DROS.

i'm a bit confused the model designation is no where on the frame could they just replace the slide with one that has the correct model number?

TonyM

12-09-2008, 07:34 PM

i'm a bit confused the model designation is no where on the frame could they just replace the slide with one that has the correct model number?

The frame has the Ambi mag release they are worried about.

The frame is only marked with the serial number, and "SF" on the right side of the frame. Since they are replacing the serial number, technically it's a new gun.

This was covered in the thread a couple times already.

M. Sage

12-09-2008, 08:14 PM

Funny that they're waiving the DROS, but not the 10 day wait. What kind of BS is that?

hoffmang

12-09-2008, 08:30 PM

Funny that they're waiving the DROS, but not the 10 day wait. What kind of BS is that?
They don't have the legal authority to waive the 10 day wait.

-Gene

XDshooter

12-09-2008, 09:31 PM

They don't have the legal authority to waive the 10 day wait.

-Gene

How do you figure. Is the DROS fee not a law?

I'm sure they can get away with a lot more than they let on. :sleeping:

hoffmang

12-09-2008, 09:40 PM

How do you figure. Is the DROS fee not a law?

I'm sure they can get away with a lot more than they let on. :sleeping:

Without looking I believe the verbiage is "may collect" on behalf of their own budget. The 10 day wait is "citizen must" which is a different standard.

-Gene

XDshooter

12-09-2008, 10:17 PM

Without looking I believe the verbiage is "may collect" on behalf of their own budget. The 10 day wait is "citizen must" which is a different standard.

-Gene

Understandable.

Why would this not be considered sending to a manufacturer for repair and can be shipped straight back to the customer.

ke6guj

12-09-2008, 10:20 PM

Understandable.

Why would this not be considered sending to a manufacturer for repair and can be shipped straight back to the customer.
because, Glock is replacing the frame with one with a different model and serial number. Had they repaired it or replaced it with a new frame with the exact same serial number (Glock as the manufacturer is allowed to do this, but chooses not to) then it would be considered a repair that could be sent back directly to the customer.

XDshooter

12-09-2008, 10:22 PM

because, Glock is replacing the frame with one with a different model and serial number. Had they repaired it or replaced it with a new frame with the exact same serial number (Glock as the manufacturer is allowed to do this, but chooses not to) then it would be considered a repair that could be sent back directly to the customer.

I was under the impression that they would do this. Otherwise, whoTF is going to actually comply with this.

What a bunch of numbnuts.

383green

12-09-2008, 11:23 PM

I was under the impression that they would do this. Otherwise, whoTF is going to actually comply with this.

The buyers are not required to comply with this recall. It's entirely voluntary. They can keep their guns as long as they want. They just have some restrictions on how they can get rid of them in CA (and even those restrictions may be avoidable before too long).

If they choose to keep their handguns, then they have a model of gun that they probably would not have been able to buy in CA otherwise (at least up until now, and assuming that they didn't find a LEO who wanted to sell one). This sounds like a win to me.

It certainly doesn't harm Glock if owners of the mislabeled handgun decide not to bother with the recall, and instead keep the guns that they already have. Non-compliance saves them from spending money sending new guns to these buyers. Furthermore, I'd imagine that it would be expensive and troublesome for Glock to manufacture a special batch of handguns with specific serial number on them, interrupting the normal automated production flow.

The whole handgun roster was just an idiotic set of hoops that was set up to discourage people from buying handguns in CA. It serves no useful purpose. A high level of compliance in this recall doesn't help anybody.

If there was an actual safety problem to be addressed, it might be proper and even beneficial for Glock to go to this trouble to make things easier for their customers. However, in this case, I think it's in their best interest (as well as everyone else's) to offer a token recall program that gets Glock off the hook with DOJ, but encourages the end users to throw away the warning letters and forget about it.

The more people decide to not comply, the better.