Tweet
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?
-
The user formerly known as PRKnative
-
unless they add a mag disconnect its not going to happen. -
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.Comment
-
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).Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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 thereComment
-
Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Taurus couldn't be arsed to submit their M1911A1 design before the deadline because it was "selling like hotcakes" everywhere else.
Constitutionally, officials cannot license or register a fundamental right.
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." - Benjamin Franklin
"Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack." -StanzeComment
-
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......Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.
Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA
CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
sigpic
No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.Comment
-
I ant a G21SF!!!! DAMN IT!!!!Comment
There are currently 23141 users online. 139 members and 23002 guests.
Most users ever online was 239,041 at 10:39 PM on 02-14-2026.
Comment