James Reeves' (a lawyer's) perspective. In this video he breaks down:

- What the “Glock switch” is — and why it matters
- The lawsuits, state laws (like AB 1127 in California), and enforcement pressure pushing Glock’s hand
- His “Second Amendment Outrage Index” so you can decide for yourself how mad to be
- Why Glock might actually be the victim here — and why we shouldn’t just hate the logo





And his follow up...

Quick legal breakdown of how federal law defines a “machinegun” and why that matters for the Glock V conversation. We cover the federal “readily restored” language (26 USC §5845(b)), California’s “readily convertible” wording in AB 1127, and a key case (United States v. One TRW Rifle (M14)) that explains “readily restored” in practice.
Bottom line: Glocks weren’t machineguns to begin with; the conversion device is what meets the federal definition.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:

Quick legal breakdown of how federal law defines a “machinegun” and why that matters for the Glock V conversation. We cover the federal “readily restored” language (26 USC §5845(b)), California’s “readily convertible” wording in AB 1127, and a key case (United States v. One TRW Rifle (M14)) that explains “readily restored” in practice.
Bottom line: Glocks weren’t machineguns to begin with; the conversion device is what meets the federal definition.


[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cecAX4IoZlA" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

I got caught up in the whole IWI ACE fiasco back in 2015.
Whenever the IWI ACE 7.62x39 first hit the market, I bought the pistol version with the 8.3" barrel. I wanted to put a real stock on the gun so I quickly submitted the paperwork with the ATF and was waiting for approval. I was notified by IWI that I must return the firearm to IWI at once. While the pistols could not fire automatically, ATF defined AK-type receivers with a three-pin fire control group as machine gun receivers. It looks like some states are going in the same direction with Glocks.

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

Either way, it’s going to cost Glock money on lawyers.

Doubt that last statement. Glock has for a very long time ( probably since it’s inception in the US market I bet) had full time salaried legal counsel - they used lawyers over the years with very good effect.

I know they have a full legal team that are very good at what they do.

Let’s say that I’d like just a chunk of their “Christmas bonus” after this nonsense is settled.
This lawsuit, as well as all the other lawsuits against gun manufacturer’s is nothing more than “death by a thousand cuts” in my opinion.
If they can’t get rid of all the guns, they can sure try and bleed them dry, drop by drop.



Here’s a question for our Legal experts / Patent gurus:

Is changing the design (assuming the slide internals) an admission of guilt / product defect?
Especially the timing of the new design.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
Is changing the design (assuming the slide internals) an admission of guilt / product defect?
Especially the timing of the new design.

No. William Kirk explains this under Rules of Evidence in the following video. (Skip to 6:24)

So what happens down the road if a frame needs replacing on a Pre V model pistol?

^^^^
Of course, this question is unquestionably best answered by the horse directly. But, for now, we can speculate away. Need a new pre-V frame? If they still make them, they will replace yours will a new one. If they don’t have/make them any more, then they will offer you a V frame. And, if the V frame doesn’t work with the old slide, they will offer you a whole new V gun maybe at a discount.

I would be willing to bet if the old frame needs replacing, you're going to be SOL, at least for the civilian market. It's likely Glock will come out with some kind of discount on the V models as you suggested.

If anybody is interested I have a primo Gen 3 G17 I’ll let go for $1800 bucks. I’ll kick in shipping.

Seriously though I was at my range / store today and the Glock thing was all the talk. I was curious if there had been a run on the Glocks they had or inflated prices but neither seemed to be the case. Like Para said there are like eleventy billion Glocks in circulation so I don’t think finding a “Pre V” will be that hard for a very long time.

I just got off the phone with a customer service rep. (Kevin) from Glock. He said Glock will continue to fully support older generations of their pistols, including frame replacements if needed. Good news for those folks who get overzealous with the stipple jobs.

I wonder if they will continue producing the G42? I haven't seen it on any of the lists on Glockstore or Glock itself.

One of the Guntubers I enjoy is JaredAF, and not just because he doesn't have a beard, tattoos, and annoying rock music. His take on the Glock "V" issue and California "ban" makes a lot of sense to me; even more so because I've noticed that several of the better known aftermarket Glock trigger manufacturers don't have triggers for some of the Gen 5 models.

^^^^^^^^^^
And what would that take be?

It would be faster for you to just go to Youtube and search "JaredAF" than it would be for me to figure out how to post videos.

I think Black92LX is asking for the TL;DR summary or in this case, Too Long; Didn't Watch.

It's a 6 minute video. He doesn't really talk about the slide changes. He talks about Glock swapping their traditional cruciform triggers for modified Glock performance triggers to specifically address the California ban.

quote:

Originally posted by Vgex:
It's a 6 minute video. He doesn't really talk about the slide changes. He talks about Glock swapping their traditional cruciform triggers for modified Glock performance triggers to specifically address the California ban.

So does this mean that going forward, all Glocks will have a fully-cocked striker?

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech]

So does this mean that going forward, all Glocks will have a fully-cocked striker?

That’s a good question. I’m sure we’ll find out in December. I believe this is the video in question. Feel free to come to your own conclusions.

Lol, so California may have just legislated a change to a fully-tensioned striker in the interest of "safety". There's some serious irony there, especially considering all the criticism directed at that specific element of the P320 design over the past couple of years.

*Not that I think that the GPT is unsafe...it actually seems like a pretty good design.

quote:

JaredAF: I think… or… maybe… or… I think.

Kind of meaningless speculation, really. We have no idea what they’re doing. Ben Stoeger put out a video and I agree with his main takeaway, which is that Glock handled this badly by not getting in front of it and letting distributors be the ones to leak the news. That, I agree with for sure. If they weren’t ready to talk about it publicly yet, they shouldn’t have updated the dealer portal with the new models or said anything to the big distributors.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
If they weren’t ready to talk about it publicly yet, they shouldn’t have updated the dealer portal with the new models or said anything to the big distributors.

You'd think they would have learned by now that Lenny McGill can't keep a secret.