EO2K

iTrader: (37)

Looking forward to seeing how things evolve in CA, might be interesting.

pusha

iTrader: (5)

So I bought this Glock 19 a few years ago and I never shot it. I've been carrying it every day and today I finally took it apart and cleaned it. I removed at least a Chinaman's worth of pubic hair and enough lint to choke an industrial dryer. Yay, I did something gun-related.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

You've never fired your CC weapon?

NastyNate

iTrader: (1)

Pusha, you've got to be incredibly brave, stupid, or trusting...

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

State law does not change. The state of CA itself does not issue permits, nor does the state of Hawaii. This isn't a semantic argument. These things are black and white, and if you're going to discuss this, it's important that you present the facts and the very precise legalese of what happened.

The facts are that this lawsuit was not against the state, but against a single CA Sheriff. I think it's a bit misleading to say "the whole state" as it would lead somebody to think that California law is somehow now different... it's not. This only affects an issuing agent that requires "good cause". In CA, it's the county sheriff, in Hawaii, it's the Chief of Police. There are counties within CA that don't require good cause, or that do accept "self defense" to satisfy it... this law won't have any affect on their current issuing policies because they aren't in violation.

This is the scope of the jurisdiction of CA9.
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington
Circuit Map

The ruling specifically and only says that not allowing "self defense" to satisfy good cause is unconstitutional... THAT'S ALL IT DOES!
California and Hawaii are the only 2 "may issue" states on that list. Hawaii is effectively "no issue" for the same reason that SOME counties within CA are effectively "no issue" because of the "GOOD CAUSE" requirement and how it is specifically used.

Chi, I know that you're reading between the lines in the hopes that this victory results in CA essentially going "shall issue"... and it might. But if it does, it will be because specific county sheriffs essentially give up the other options open to them. "Good cause" was an easy "out" for them, but there are others. I don't see San Diego/LA/SanFran ever giving up... ever. But I get a huge boner thinking about the possibility that my parents (who live in San Diego) may one day be able to carry, but I do not agree that the existing roadblocks to carry are "crumbling" in the truly anti-counties. While this ruling is huge, and eliminates the "thing" that is currently used to deny issuing permits to the masses, I also know that the anti's are hard at work right now coming up with other equally effective roadblocks that will each have to be knocked down. Or they could just give up to save money, and try to spin the loss somehow into a "victory for the people" or whatever. The link at the bottom indicates maybe as much.

I will now pontificate: Like IL, the anti's in CA did this to themselves. IL fought for a long time to keep that state "no-issue" despite the writing on the wall that it could not last. When the time came they lost both Moore and Aguilar, and the result was not only an order to start issuing, but due to a looming "constitutional carry" deadline and the infighting of state Democrats, the result was a very unexpected decent'ish "shall issue". The Democrats could very easily have had a very restrictive California'ish "may issue", but couldn't get their **** together in time.

California fucked up by making Open Carry illegal. With OC, the majority of current carry lawsuits in CA have no standing. But without OC, and with restrictive "good cause", those counties are effectively "no issue". As SCOTUS has yet to find a "right to carry" case they're willing to take, the hope was that if Peruta hadn't worked, they might take it. But that's moot now I think.

I donate yearly to Calguns, SAF, NAGR, NRA, and VCDL... I fight the good fight whenever I can, even in CA where I will never live because I understand how important victories are there.

I'll be damned... looks like Hutchens won't put up a fight. It may be a political move to just "go with the flow", but at least she's not giving a obvious "**** you". Check this out:
O.C. "inundated" with hundreds of concealed weapons applications - latimes.com

pusha

iTrader: (5)

Nah. I bought it, loaded it and that's it other than a test. I'm certain it works as I did pop a primer in an empty shell casing.

Gaston Glock finna put some fresh golds in my baby momma's mouth if this thing doesn't work and I get smoked.

NastyNate

iTrader: (1)

For me it wouldn't even be about it going bang or not. It would be how I shoot the gun, if it shoots high or low, etc. But then I like to over prepare for those situations. Get mama sum gol teef too if shitz blowd up.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Full_Tilt_Boogie

iTrader: (1)

How much should I pay for a good condition, used Glock 17?

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

Putting aside the folly of not practicing with your carry sidearm - you would be surprised how much abuse you can subject a glock to before it fails to function.

I have an SR9c that I am unable to carry until my permit arrives and so I have been conducting an experiment as to it's ability to function after long periods of no cleaning. (I have a second sidearm that functions as my defensive "home" firearm in the interum)

I have not cleaned my SR9c in about three years and have about 3,500 rounds through it with no malfunctions. This was not just plinking at the range, it has been through about 50 hours of defensive pistol classes in this state of cleanliness. My carry permit should be arriving sometime next week and so I will be cleaning it before I start carrying it, but I think that is a good torture test as to it's ability to perform even in sub-optimal conditions.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

What generation and whats the condition? Extra mags and ****?

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

I bought a Glock 17 new in 08 for about $550. I sold it 2 months later for $475 on consignment at the gun shop. It sold within a few days of being put out. It was an amazing pistol, but after a few hundred rounds I realized it did not feel right in my hands so I sold it.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

I got my new gen 4 19 for $467.

Full_Tilt_Boogie

iTrader: (1)

Id like one that is functionally perfect and cosmetically pretty good.
I havent really started looking but Im looking for a ballpark so I dont get ripped off.
What do I need to know about the different generations?

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Not 100% sure on the differences but.I know the gen 4 glock comes with different grips. The gen 3 17 should have a single spring but it might be a dual. Not sure what difference that makes.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Glock generations:
Glock Generations 101

Lots of places online sell used trade-in Glocks, you can just use Google. For a good-condition or better G17 Gen2/3 with one mag, you're probably going to find them advertised for like $369, plus $20 shipping, and another $20 for your FFL... then another $50 for 2 more mags. Now you're up to $460. In person, just paying sales tax, you might grab one with a single mag for $400 otd... and I'd call that a good deal.

Keep in mind as well that a lot of police trade-in Glocks will come with night sights.

Also, for some reason, used .40cal Glocks are usually a bit cheaper than 9mm models.

Mark at SGB is highly recommended for used police trade-ins:
Firearms, Guns, Rifles. Grain Valley, Missouri.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

That didn't take long:
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Appeals Ninth Circuit Concealed Weapons Permit Ruling | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General

There is discussion on another forum I read that says this move by the state may be moot. Since the case wasn't against the state, the AG may have no standing to request en banc... we shall see.

pusha

iTrader: (5)

I bought two identical Glock 19s on the same day. One has seen about 2,000 rounds, the other has not. I mention this because they shoot like every other Glock does: decent.

I'm not worried about accuracy beyond, say, 20 feet as I'm fairly certain anything beyond that and I would be able to avoid trouble. BUT YOU NEVER KNOW, RIGHT SHEEPDOGS??!!

pusha

iTrader: (5)

Btw I wouldn't pay more than $300 for a used Glock. I'm able to get most models for $399 so my situation is a little different.

NastyNate

iTrader: (1)

I can't remember the source but a person at 30ft can be in your bidness in under 2 seconds.