Basically Glock wants to distance themselves from Glock switches and is encouraging states to double down on the federal law already in place prohibiting full auto without a tax stamp.
9 Likes
Ill be done buying future glocks. I like the shield series better.
I understand what they are saying but most folks know that glock doesn’t sell the switches. They are just a popular platform that is easy to convert.
Spineless company that basically supports registration. Rolling over cuz they are afraid of backlash, when everyone knows glocks will always still sell.
Any company that is more afraid of the left vs there own consumers can kiss my a..
I stopped buying smith revolvers when they went to the hillary hole for the same reason.
10 Likes
I will add that we need more companies like American Eagle. They knew they would get backlash for the Sweeney ad. They stood their ground against the left.
Even sig is standing their ground. Yes, in the early years of the 320 they admitted that went to far with their FCU’s and they did the free upgrades. Yes they settled out of court for some lawsuits but it is cheaper sometimes than to continue litigation. They still standing by the safety of the 320 series. They haven’t folded…..yet
im off my soap box..for now
7 Likes
By the way, many, if not most, of S&W revolvers are available again without the lock.
7 Likes
Yeah, now they are
4 Likes
What’s the point of a state law that is just a copy of the federal law? Pointless waste of time and money.
9 Likes
I agree but its that feel good type of thing. Another useless law that is basically superceded by federal. Kind of like after the MN shooting, forget about going after the root cause, go after the gun.
Smoke and screen
8 Likes
I learned long ago while spearfishing, I want my equipment to work for me, not the other way around. When it’s life or death, spearfishing or on the land in self-defense, I pick tools that instinctively fit me.
I bought my one and only revolver about a year ago – a Smith & Wesson with a “Hillary hole”. I could tell by dry firing this was a tool that is going to work for me. I didn’t notice it nor did I know the history at the time, but I do not regret buying it. I’ve tried Glocks – not one of them has felt like it was going to naturally work for me. So, I don’t own any Glocks.
Regardless of their political blunders, I see myself continuing to purchase products, especially life and death products that work for me. I don’t own any striker fire, but I am starting to lean towards a Sig Sauer P365 – right in the middle of their current reputation.
7 Likes
I believe that the intent is to un-muddy the water between Federal and State/Local jurisdictions. There are nuances to when/if non-Federal law enforcement can enforce Federal law, get warrants, prosecute, etc. In this case, by openly asking for State Govs to enact laws where they may not already exist, they’re trying to limit any perceived liability.
5 Likes
I have one Smith & Wesson revolver with the hole, and one without. I trust them equally and enjoy them both the same.
5 Likes
Totally disagree with Glock’s move. Whoever the individual in the Glock company is that sent the letter should be “FIRED”!
7 Likes
Didnt say the smiths didnt shoot good. It’s a matter of principle, just like glock, Smith caved.
IMO, hard to trust a company when they cave to peer pressure on a whim. Especially a gun company, you know, that silly 2A thing and all
5 Likes
Or Glock could redesign their guns so they are not as easy to convert. Glock knows there is a big market for full auto handguns even though they are illegal, so they don’t want to change the design and lose those sales.
If gun control means hitting what you are aiming at…I’m all for it!
5 Likes
Supposedly, the ATF does not approve firearms to be sold in the USA that are “easily” converted, so blame the ATF, not Glock.
1 Like
Like I needed another reason to detest glock. CANiK all the way for the WIN!