PDA

View Full Version : Glock 21SF


Kali_M14
03-14-2007, 12:40 PM
Does anyone know if the 21SF has been submitted for approval? I see that the S&W M&P 45 is already on there...Can anyone shed any light?

Josh
03-14-2007, 1:03 PM
unless they add a mag disconnect its not going to happen.

NIB
03-15-2007, 12:13 AM
The Glock reps at Shot Show said it would not be available in Kalifornia. It sucks cause they had all the time in the world to submit it. HK apparently submitted some pistols on the very last day that they had chosen not too at first but changed their mind.

slick_711
03-15-2007, 12:17 AM
The western region Glock LE rep told me last week that they did infact submit it, but he didn't seem to know details. I don't see how it could be approved now if it wasn't submitted before the 1st, and Glock will never add a mag disconnect.

It does have a great feel to it though, much better than the 21 (and I have large hands).

luvtolean
03-15-2007, 6:58 AM
I don't blame them.

A mag disconnect adds unnecessary complexity to the firearms, and reduces it's fighting utility.

When we're done with SB-23, this de facto ban must be attacked in force.

Wulf
03-15-2007, 7:36 AM
I wonder what it would take to create some hokey collection of parts that would block the trigger bar movement on the glock when the mag is removed. Something that could easily be retrofitted away by anybody capable of detail stripping a glock.

I'm thinking of a trigger bar with a notch cut in the top, a another little hinged piece similar to the slide release that would fit in the notch that would have an extension that would contact the mag and get it pushed up out of the way when the magazine was there

DIG
03-15-2007, 11:16 AM
The Glock reps at Shot Show said it would not be available in Kalifornia. It sucks cause they had all the time in the world to submit it. HK apparently submitted some pistols on the very last day that they had chosen not too at first but changed their mind.

This is becoming all too common lately. Big name manufacturers (Glock, Kimber, HK) bowing-out of the Kali market. I guess the profits from sales here aren't enough to justify putting yet another safety mechanism on the firearm as to comply with Kali's new laws. :mad:

NIB
03-16-2007, 2:34 AM
Well I hope they did submit it, I also hope that the Glock reps would have a big meeting and get their info straight. Half of them say one thing and the other half say something else.


DIG....I don't blame them for bowing out of the Kali market. I wouldn't want a redesigned gun just for the sake of politics.

Stanze
03-16-2007, 7:42 AM
This is becoming all too common lately. Big name manufacturers (Glock, Kimber, HK) bowing-out of the Kali market. I guess the profits from sales here aren't enough to justify putting yet another safety mechanism on the firearm as to comply with Kali's new laws. :mad:

Taurus couldn't be arsed to submit their M1911A1 design before the deadline because it was "selling like hotcakes" everywhere else.:rolleyes:

DrjonesUSA
03-16-2007, 9:04 AM
One thing I've been told by an FFL is that it IS legal for him to buy any handgun for his personal use/collection and then he can sell it to you after one year.

Of course, you'd have to pay for the gun up front, he'd hang on to it and presumably let you borrow it on occasion for range trips, but you couldn't take possession of it for 12 months.

Still, for those who are that determined.....I know I'm considering doing that for a few pistols......

Pvt. Cowboy
03-16-2007, 10:22 AM
What kills me about the CA DOJ is that on one hand they can refer to OLLs in Alison Merrilees' infamous 'Scare The Gun Owners' memos as "Fundamentally identical in operation to a prohibited assault weapon", yet on the other hand require that each and every variant of the same manufacturer's basic model of handgun be submitted to their 'Saturday Night Special test' because each model of the same handgun series is... what? Fundamentally different from one another? A Glock 22 is really that much different from a Glock 23? Boy, that's some perfectly rational jurisprudence right there, I tell you.

I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if there isn't established case law in some other area of California's legal decision that would reverse this stupid requirement?

There isn't some case in California legal history that we can turn to here that was successfully appealed like perhaps where a real estate developer had to jump through the same hoop countless times or pay some fee or tax or satisfy a state inspection process for each individual dwelling he built in a housing tract until the appeals court ruled that he only had to do it once for all of them because they were fundamentally no different from one another?

If I were a lawyer, this kind of research is all I would ever do. Too bad that lawyers like that are these days only interested in acquiring stale old patents and suing everyone they thinks might be using them without paying royalties.

formerTexan
03-16-2007, 1:19 PM
If I were a lawyer, this kind of research is all I would ever do. Too bad that lawyers like that are these days only interested in acquiring stale old patents and suing everyone they thinks might be using them without paying royalties.

Remember that the Harrott decision was a case brought up by a lawyer himself, and that there are many other lawyers working with the NRA in California and around the country. So all is not lost with lawyers :p

STAGE 2
03-18-2007, 2:50 AM
If I were a lawyer, this kind of research is all I would ever do. Too bad that lawyers like that are these days only interested in acquiring stale old patents and suing everyone they thinks might be using them without paying royalties.

Yeah... Thats all I do all day:rolleyes: Care to tell us what you do so I can make a sweeping generalization about your career.

bwiese
03-18-2007, 6:08 PM
Too bad that lawyers like that are these days only interested in acquiring stale old patents and suing everyone they thinks might be using them without paying royalties.

Um, a patent is really just a right to sue. It helps patent holders assert/retain the value of thier patents. If they DON'T fight each and every perceived violation, there's a chance the patent can be mooted - so it's a duty, ridiculous as it may seem.

It's very much why McDonald's kinda has to go after every biz named McDonald's (or "McX..." representing a quick/generic biz, etc.) If they don't fight, the value of their trademark could be reduced to zero and become generic (look what's happened to "Kleenex" and "Xerox" terms). You'll find that these supposedly egregious suits by McDonalds on a mom & pop shop are sometimes settled with McDonald's paying the mom & pop's legal fees and they pay McD $1 - and still keep their name. That way a 'royalty' is still paid and the value of trademark is not diminished in legal force. I'm sure Mickey D's marketing folks hate this bad PR, but it has to be done - just like you can't let some little guy slide on abusing your patent.

hotbossa
06-09-2007, 9:42 AM
I ant a G21SF!!!! DAMN IT!!!!

The Professional
06-10-2007, 6:15 AM
I have one but won't tell where I got it. ;)

lunde
06-10-2007, 7:48 AM
The current word is that the G21SF has been certified for California sale, and should be appearing on the roster soon.

Wulf
06-10-2007, 8:22 AM
The current word is that the G21SF has been certified for California sale, and should be appearing on the roster soon.

Boo!

I'm not looking forward to all that bastardized brass showing up in my range pickups.

lunde
06-10-2007, 8:27 AM
Wulf, you wrote:Boo!

I'm not looking forward to all that bastardized brass showing up in my range pickups.Huh? The G21SF is chambered in .45 Auto, not .45 GAP, which your comment suggests. Only the G37, G38, and G39 are chambered in .45 GAP. Besides, .45 GAP is an outstanding cartridge.

The Professional
06-10-2007, 8:43 AM
Wulf, you wrote:Huh? The G21SF is chambered in .45 Auto, not .45 GAP, which your comment suggests. Only the G37, G38, and G39 are chambered in .45 GAP. Besides, .45 GAP is an outstanding cartridge.


Hehehehe...oops! Somebody got sch#####! :p:D

Wulf
06-10-2007, 9:05 AM
Oh good. More 45 brass. ;)

gmcal
06-10-2007, 12:46 PM
The current word is that the G21SF has been certified for California sale, and should be appearing on the roster soon.

lunde,

Would you mind telling me where you heard that from? I got to handle a 21SF at a local shop and liked it very much. If it is CA legal it may very well be my next pistol purchase.