View Full Version : CA Glock buyers beware

November 8, 2002, 05:32 PM
I just had a long conversation with Glock. My brand new Glock 27 is on their unpublished recall list. They welcomed me to send it in for the “upgrade” but this will change the serial number so it will have to be shipped to an FFL and will be treated like a new gun purchase. I was told that turn around time is min 8wks. In 2003, CA will have new laws in effect so this was supposed to be my last handgun purchase. This will mean that for the same gun I would have to take the new 2003 test, get fingerprinted, and pay a fee. Also, I would also be responsible for the costs of shipping to Glock and FFL fees at its return. If you are in CA, don't buy a Glock unless you check the serial number first. The cost of re-registering should be figured into the price before you buy. I know of many shooters that are planning to make all handgun purchases before the 2003 deadline. Just don’t make the same mistake I did. Glock says just to use the gun until it breaks, but if it does, you will be subject to the new requirements and fees.

November 8, 2002, 06:02 PM
I'm pysched to get my new frame, because I know it will be that much closer to the asympote of "Perfection" to which Gaston Glock strives.

So, a fat HA HA to those of you with NON-recalled receivers!

I agree. It sucks here in California. These laws are ridiculous. Lets channel some of the 'heat' generated by this 'friction' away from Glock and direct it toward the legislators who created this mess in the first place.


November 8, 2002, 09:49 PM
help me to understand
why does glock have to change the serial numbers on the frame when they only have to modifie the gun, adding or removing a item from the frame dosen't mean they have to change the serial numbers.

November 9, 2002, 12:33 AM
They have to replace the entire frame, as the piece that can break (rear frame rail) is permanently molded in. By law a new frame = a new serial number.

So tell me, just what sort of BS are they forcing upon gun owners in 2003? For as long as Sen. Frankenstein and Boxer are your fearless leaders you really don't expect things to actually improve, do you?

November 9, 2002, 12:52 AM
thats too bad I have heard of some gun companies and peopl who will just send the gun right back to you with a new # and that way its unregistered.

November 9, 2002, 11:34 AM
the problem with that is that if you get caught with a unregistered gun you could be facing some heavy federal time,PROJECT EXILE.

November 9, 2002, 11:48 AM
do you know how many people own unregistered guns? there are lots of guns that were boughts before they started registering them.

November 9, 2002, 01:16 PM
It's really too bad gun owners in California let things get as bad as they did...At any rate, I surely don't see any point in complaining about it now...

November 9, 2002, 01:48 PM
I don't know why Glock has to give you a new serial number. On AR15.com and Assault web, I have heard of several guys who have had pre-ban AR receivers fail and they sent them to Colt, and Colt made a new receiver with the old pre-ban serial number. Some of the old receivers were "slabside" and now they have the raised magazine fence on them. I think it was eaiser for Glock just to give a new serial number. Here is a link to a story on Assault web: http://assaultweb.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/003562.html

November 9, 2002, 02:09 PM
I believe the reason for the new serial number is so there won't be any question about the rear frame rails.

November 9, 2002, 02:15 PM
So,are you saying that you can't buy a handgun after
Jan.1,2003 ???..................:eek: