The so-called “Glock switch” is an attachment which fits on the rear of the slide of a Glock semi-automatic pistol and makes it capable of fully automatic fire. It essentially turns it into an approximation of a Glock 18, a selective-fire machine pistol developed at the request of military and counter-terrorist entities.
This has become the prestige gun among gang-bangers, often accompanied by a “stendo” and a “beam,” street argot for a long extended magazine and a laser sight. Readily available on the Internet, they seem to be mostly made in China and are often found with a counterfeit Glock logo.
Part of the trouble is, their extremely high rate of fire makes them uncontrollable in all but the most expert hands. This creates a huge potential for dead and wounded innocent bystanders.
Full auto shooting is fun – if you know what you’re doing, can do it safely, and can do it legally. I worry that new gun owners might presume their ready availability means that they are legal. They sure as hell ain’t, and the law-abiding citizen is wise to stay the hell away from them. Warn your friends, especially new gun owners who might not know any better. Some history on their development can be found here.
Thanks for the update on street lingo. The warning is appropriate. I expect BATFE would regard the switch like they do full auto fire control parts for the AR: they don’t have to be installed, simple possession of both gun and verbotten parts=felony.
I’ve always kinda wondered how the G18 and the Berretta 92 counter part (plus maybe an HK item) worked out in the real world. IIRC, at least the Berretta (93?) had a folding front grip. Seems like one of those things where real world performance didn’t meet expectations. Cool often trumps effectiveness.
94R is the correct model for the Beretta.
(IANAL warning)
The “Glock switch”, IMO, is a NFA item under federal law; it facilitates full-auto fire in what is normally a semi-auto pistol. Don’t try to buy one unless you’ve jumped through the hoops (at least, until the courts overturn the NFA as the unconstitutional travesty it is).
My bigger worry, though, is the line in the statute that says “readily converted”. As in, a semi-auto firearm that can be “readily converted” to full-auto falls under the NFA.
For example: An AR-pattern firearm (rifle or pistol) can be converted to full-auto, but it requires specific knowledge and precise machining in addition to the necessary trigger assembly and BCG. It’s not something most home hobbyists can easily do. Thus (AFAIK and IANAL) the parts alone are (usually) not NFA items, nor is the actual receiver/firearm unless that machining has already been done.
But a simple drop-in part is different. If a drop-in part can convert a semi-auto Glock pistol into a full-auto weapon, are ALL Glock pistols now capable of being “readily converted” to full-auto — and now ALL Glock pistols are statutory NFA items — or is it still just the “switch”?
Or am I way off base here?
That the approach the Biden administration and ATF are currently pursuing.
@Archer: As these switches are post 1986, regular people still wouldn’t be able to own one.
I believe that Glock 18s were made before ‘86, so they’d be available.
Fair point. I forgot about the Hughes Amendment. Good catch!
You make and excellent point. With the BATFE’s history of thuggery & heavy handedness I would guess they will want all glock owners to surrender or register their pistol as a class 3 capable weapon. With all the insane rules being put on the books these days it is no wonder we can still own a block of metal or plastic.
Well, pre-1986 Glock owners would have the option to register them and pay the tax stamp to keep them. All post-1986 Glocks would have to be surrendered for destruction (or more likely, to be added to the BATFE armory for funzies), since by law they cannot be registered.
RE: Owning raw materials: As the great Mistress of Snark, Tam Keel, has pointed out, “80% receiver? You can buy 90% Sten receivers down at Home Depot, no background check required!” (A Sten SMG receiver is a metal pipe with openings machined in — designed that way intentionally, to be crafted by normal civilians during WWII — and it takes a good deal less work to make a functional Sten receiver from a pipe than it does to finish an “80%” AR lower.) But what are they going to do, regulate all pipes as firearms and make plumbing supply and home improvement stores be licensed as Class III FFLs? (Actually, I wouldn’t put it past the BATFE to push for that if they thought they could get away with it.)
Name a semi-auto that you cannot convert to full auto? Depending on your skill level as a gunsmith and engineer, I would say all of them. Potential is not actual. Gun banners don’t need a reason like that to ban anything. They simply ban it. Logic doesn’t come into play with tyrants.
Nor does “common sense” come in to play with ANYTHING regarding our current government. NONE of them have any sense, much less the “common” variety.
True, pretty much any semi-auto CAN be made to fire full-auto. The question is, how much gunsmithing and/or engineering skill and work does it take?
The statute says “readily converted”. If you have to gut the inner workings, precisely drill new holes in the frame/receiver, and install new parts — particularly if the manufacturer never intended it to fire full-auto and doesn’t make the parts, so you have to machine them yourself — it’s more expertise and work than can reasonably be considered “readily converted”. Just because it’s POSSIBLE doesn’t mean every John Q. Public can do it in his garage.
(As an aside, “readily converted” is also highly subjective — I’d even say unconstitutionally so. BATFE’s Firearms Technology Branch [FTB] makes that determination … after inspecting and fiddling with it in a fully-staffed and -supplied professional machine shop. With all the tools and expertise they have on-hand, of course they can re-create almost any malfunction presented to them!)
One of the two practical lessons I took from my Constitutional Law class was: Don’t be a test case. It’s expensive, time consuming and, should you lose, life altering. OK, if you win, you get your name attached to a precedent but you’re still stuck with an enormous legal bill.
The other thing is about human nature. There’s a personality type that, when they encounter something that seems “off”, they err on the safe side and let the details get sorted out by others. Meanwhile, you’re spending money on attorneys.
Oh, thanks Alton on the Berretta model #.
I’ve run across several BATF/BATFE Agents over the decades that actually were nice folks and quite helpful. Then there’s the others…..
I will simply state the obvious warning, to which all you gentlemen are referring.
It would be easy for a legislator to make the argument that, since one semi-automatic weapon can be converted to full-auto, then all semi-auto weapons can be converted. Therefore, we need to ban all semi-automatic guns. In order to preserve the Second Amendment, we will be allowed to keep our manually operated guns.
Remember that Glocks were seen as dangerous, because as plastic guns, they could sneak through metal detectors. Remember the plague of “cop-killer” bullets. Remember that the AR-15 assault rifle was nationally banned from 1994–2004.
If they try to ban semi-autos, we will have to stand firm and not give in to their tyranny. On the positive side, there are now more gun owners, and more guns in America than ever before. It will be harder to fool the sheeple than it was in 1994.
Don’t firget Stacey Abrahms running for Ga. governor, and promising to ban LL semi auto weapons, including 10-22s, etc. If the switch makes the pistol run FA, then should only the switch be subject to confiscation, like a DIAS?
Glock switches, fentanyl, alcohol, . . . prohibition doesn’t work. It works less well today with globalization. We should invest resources into core solutions, and defense.
Indeed. Look at the “War on Drugs” that’s been going since the 80s and 90s. What has it accomplished? More young men in prison and with criminal records, and the drug trade has not slowed one bit. As you say, with globalization (and particularly with our wide-open borders), it’s particularly ineffective.
(Pardon me while I wax poetic for a moment.)
The libertarian in me says there shouldn’t be criminal penalties for petty drug offenses — “drug crimes” should only include manufacturing, transporting, and dealing — but too many people will see “legalized drug use” as permission to use.
(Another example: How did keeping free condoms and “Plan B” birth control readily available for high school students affect teen pregnancy? It didn’t. It arguably made it worse because although individual s*xual encounters had lower risks of pregnancy, many teens saw it as permission and engaged in more encounters. The Law of Averages took over and nullified any possible benefit. And that doesn’t address the STI rates….)
One real solution would be to remove criminal penalties for simple possession and use, as long as the offender completes rehab and stays clean. If they do, expunge their record of those offenses such that officially, it never happened.
As it is, addicts are disincentivized from seeking treatment because it puts them on law enforcement’s radar (5th Amendment violation, anyone?), and when compounded with the stigma and shame of ever having used, most addicts don’t see a way out. Remove those two problems, and I believe more people will choose to get and stay clean.
But that’s difficult and doesn’t increase government power. Prohibition is simpler AND creates new bureaucracies and enforcement opportunities. So you can guess which one gets enacted.
I worked in the retail side of the industry for a number of years. Rarely did I work with any customer on a sale when the first few sentences out of their mouth included the terms “stendo,” “extendo” or “beam.” We had complete discretion to not sell to customers who were suspect. These terms jump to the top of suspect list.
The “Glock switch” if not currently illegal under the NFA will soon be according to BTAF interpretation. I cannot think of any situation in civilian life under which full-auto is beneficial (in either pistol or rifle). Gang bangers use it because they’re idiots and it impresses their fellow idiots.
Full-auto is meant for combat situations where it is used for fire suppression so other members of the unit can maneuver against a fortified position. Why would you need that in civilian circumstances? Semi-auto is all that you need for civilian self-defense.
I have read that in Vietnam, the smart lieutenants would make sure that everyone in the platoon had their M16 set on semi-auto before settling down for the night. In many cases, full-auto in a personal rifle is not needed to repel an attack. What is needed in those cases is a crew-served weapon. A rifle on full-auto will simply eat up your ammo leaving you with nothing but teeth and fingernails.
Like Mas, said, the primary usage of full-auto in civilian life is for entertainment on the range.
I agree with most of what you say above, but take exception to your idea that you know what I (or anyone other than you) “need” for self defense. You know who else professes to know what my “needs” are? Yeah, all the folks who want to take my (currently legal) guns away.
Full-auto functionality and “cover fire” might — might — come in handy if a citizen militia ever gets called up to counter tyrannical government…
… which is the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
Until and unless that happens, though, I agree: full-auto is for fun on the range. Any other need is met with semi-auto or manual action.
But none of the above should be read as acceptance that any unaccountable third party should be qualified or authorized to say what my “needs” are.
Absolutely off topic but a question:
The last 5 seasons of CSI Vegas went up on Netflix in the UK this week.
In one episode a cop saw a man shooting a pistol (he couldn’t see what at), so he shot him.
The episode revolved around if he shot the man while he was immobile on the ground after the first few hits and was it racial or personal (the white cop actually knew the black target). All the way through people keep asking “would you say that if x wasn’t white/black?”
My question though is what about the initial decision for the cop to shoot. No one ever even questions it.
Is that what one can expect if you are like a responsible ciitizen, trying to stop a robbery or spree?
njk
nicholas kane,
I don’t know all the facts here, but I would like to know why the man was shooting a pistol. Was he shooting at a gang-banger? Was he shooting, in self-defense, at a criminal? Was he the first good guy with a gun, on the scene, trying to stop a mass shooting?
Friendly fire is a problem. Sometimes even undercover policemen get shot by uniformed officers responding to an incident.
The first man was completely justified. It was a gang banger trying to kill a kid the first man (who turned out to be a cop) was trying to get out of his gang.
Again all the way through people asked “would you have said that if x wasn’t a cop?” Good episode; made one think. Everyone; cops, witnesses, CSI’s, the public, the viewer, kept making judgments they probably wouldn’t have if the shoe was on the other foot.
BUT my point is: the responding cop just saw a man shooting a gun. He couldn’t see what at.
Would responding cops shoot in that case?
nicholas kane,
I think it is entirely possible the first cop on the scene MAY have shot the man he saw with the gun. The cop was answering a call involving a shooter. The cop is probably a little worried about what he may find when he arrives on scene. He may be calm enough to issue a verbal warning first, “Stop! Police! Drop the weapon!” I am guessing that different people would react differently, according to their training and experience.
Homicide can, of course, be justified on the basis of defense of self or others from an attack that has the potential to inflict death or great bodily harm upon an innocent person. American Law is fairly uniform in this area across all fifty States. Our law, in this area, grew out of English Common Law and involves five (5) elements that must all be met in order for the homicide to be found legally justified. The elements are:
Innocence (The person being defended must be innocent of criminal wrongdoing.)
imminence (The threat poised must be immediate. It cannot be a speculative future threat.)
Proportionality (The force used must be appropriate. Lethal force can only be used to counter a lethal threat. A non-lethal threat must be countered with only non-lethal force.)
Avoidance (If an option exists to avoid the threat without using force, it must be taken. Some States drop this requirement depending upon the location of the incident and the legality of one’s location. For example, one is typically not required to retreat in one’s own home. (Castle Doctrine)
Reasonableness (Overall, one’s response must be reasonable under the “Reasonable Man in the same situation” concept.)
While the Law is fairly consistent, from State to State, the ideology of Prosecutors is not consistent. In some States, or in certain cities, local Prosecutors seem to have a built-in prejudice against Self-Defense claims. They seem to think that it is part of their job to discourage any act of self-defense whether justified or not.
Prosecutors have a lot of power under our legal system. It is a common saying that a prosecutor, in America, can get a Grand Jury to indict a Ham Sandwich. Politics, the Media, and race do (regrettably) also enter into these calculations. Therefore, whether one gets charged or not depends not only upon the circumstances of the incident but, also, the political and ideological temperament of the local prosecutor.
They say that, in real estate sales, the critical factor is “Location, location, and location”. Sadly, this is almost just as true when it comes to defending yourself against crime.
Defend yourself in a “Blue” State or City and (especially if race pops up and stirs up the media) and you may well find yourself prosecuted even if the unbiased facts clearly show self-defense. Both the George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse cases were (clearly) open-and-shut self-defense. Yet, both men were prosecuted for reasons of politics and race (but not justice).
Defend yourself in a location without politicized prosecutors and without creating a media feeding frenzy, and a more even-handed approach will likely occur.
So, while the law is consistent, justice is not. Too often, the political and ideological climate has taken off the blindfold of Lady Justice. In other cases, a thumb is being placed on her scales.
One of the most common complaints about the courts, in America Today, is that our justice system has deteriorated into a “Two-tiered system” whereby some receive favorable treatment while other are treated with undue harshness. “Equal Justice under the Law” seems to have become a victim of our divided political climate.
nicholas kane,
TN_MAN’S comments hit the bullseye as usual. In anti-gun states, or in front of anti-self-defense prosecutors, first we defend our lives against a criminal attack, then we defend our actions in front of the legal system. It is possible to survive a criminal attack, only to have the legal system ruin our lives. Massad teaches us both forms of self-defense.
A friend of a friend had a manufacturer’s ATF license and brought a hand full of those to my range which he used on his G19. First of all they were 3-D printed and they would only survive 5 mags at most. Second is I’m kinda handy with hand guns and there was no way I could stop muzzle rise. I put one mag through it and said not for me.
You just weren’t doing it right. All you have to do is hold the gun sideways and – no, I can’t even type that without snorting tea.
Ammo is too expensive for full-auto.
If I was allowed to purchase one legally, it sounds fun. I’d be willing to spend $200 for a transfer stamp for one (if i lived in a state that allowed them). But my idea of fun is not loosing my gun rights, serving 10 years in federal prison and or facing a $10,000 fine.
In this case, I believe a full auto airsoft pistol might be the answer for me, plus 6mm plastic bb’s are a lot cheaper.
Glock switch? No thank you, it’s an NFA item, and I like my freedom too much. I guess just call me chicken little.
When I used to fool with Thompson, quickly learned that 3 round bursts were about my limit for accuracy. Even developed a lead bullet load that was very controllable (and cheap to reload).
Jorge Leon reminds me of John T. Thompson. They both invented things for the good guys to use, but the bad guys used them, too, and made the headlines. Anything can be used for good or evil.
94R is the proper Beretta model.
Arrest, charge, prosecute, convict and imprison thugs as they are caught. It should be quite obvious by now that prohibiting just about anything that exists and is easily manufactured cannot be controlled. Get a handle on the perps and a lot of our crime problems will go away. Do we need more jails? Perhaps at first, but once Evil figures out the transaction costs for their crimes outweigh the benefits, they will come around.
I want to see a video of someone, perhaps one of these gang-bangers with a full auto Glock against Jerry Miculek with a semi most rounds on target. (No offense Mas)
Jerry Miculek would not even need a semi-automatic pistol. Have you seen him shoot a revolver? Check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM
It is the man that matters, not the machine. Exactly the point that I also make in my other comment below.
Glock switches, combined with the “gangsta” grip (holding the pistol sidways), will produce a wide, uncontrolled sideways sweep of bullets in most shooters’ hands. Perhaps this partially accounts for the increased number of bystanders hit by today’s gangbangers.
I’ve only seen one person able to control his (legally owned) full-auto handgun while doing a mag-dump. A full-auto handgun is a poor weapon in the hands of 99.99% of shooters. Most of the bullets will be distributed around the landscape (not on target) and the magazine will empty in 2 seconds. Then the shooter is left holding a short, blunt impact weapon. And good luck fishing a “stendo” mag out of a jacket pocket to perform a reload without catching it on fabric.
Glock-switched Glocks are the choice of hoodlums who don’t know anything about guns. It’s a chance to add 10 years to their prison sentences without gaining any functional benefit.
An almost nonexistent chance, given the prosecution rates in the blue cities where these are used commonly.
It’s a chance to add 10 years to their prison sentences without gaining any functional benefit.
But they won’t. Gun charges are frequently dropped in plea deals.
The only “offenders” who will get those 10 years are the otherwise-law-abiding productive citizens whose ONLY crime is buying a cool range toy without realizing it’s illegal — or soon will be.
Also: Glock switches, combined with the “gangsta” grip (holding the pistol sidways), will produce a wide, uncontrolled sideways sweep of bullets in most shooters’ hands. Perhaps this partially accounts for the increased number of bystanders hit by today’s gangbangers.
Feature, not a bug. Fear is every bit a tool that a gun is, and once the gangs have it, they can use it against the people without cost or consequence.
What better way to cow the bystanders into staying the Hell out of the thugs’ way than to spray fire with zero regard for the people around their target?
Left-wing thinking. It is so pervasive! This entire topic shows it.
This entire blog is fixated upon the concept that some THING (external to mankind) is BAD and is a problem. This THING is an Environmental Source of Evil (ESOE).
The Left’s entire Worldview is built upon this concept of identifying some ESOE, loose in the wild, and then putting together some kind of program to kill or tame the ESOE.
Don’t you see that this is all a distraction? It is blame-shifting. It is a defense mechanism that some humans have evolved to duck moral responsibility for their own actions by shifting the blame to some THING (which is external to themselves) thereby giving them an excuse to pardon themselves.
Don’t blame me, the Leftist proclaims. It is not my fault. I am the victim here (The Left absolutely LOVES to play the victim!). The real THING to blame is that ESOE that is running loose in the wild and corrupting our society and culture (Leftists always think in terms of culture.)
It is all Bull$h!t!
In the linked story, the inventor of the “EVIL” Glock Switch moans and sorrows about how he invented it. Mea Culpa, he cries (as he beats his breast!). I have sinned! I have invented an ESOE. The dreaded “Glock Switch”. It has escaped from its Patent Documents and is loose in the wild!
If it is possible to puke with a keyboard, I would do it! (This is sarcasm, folks, in case anyone has a hard time recognizing it.)
Let me wise you up, folks! Glock switches don’t kill people. Glock pistols equipped with Glock switches don’t kill people. Fully automatic firearms don’t kill people. These THINGS are all just inanimate objects. They have no will of their own.
It is the people who pull the triggers and that are committing crimes that are killing people. For heaven’s sake, stop trying to build a fantasy World of “Environmental Sources of Evil” so that you can shift the blame for “Human Evil” onto some defenseless THING in the environment.
An enlightened society would punish criminals for their behaviors. The punishments would fit the crimes. We are living in a Dark Age. The only field experiencing a Golden Age is technology.
Anyone stupid enough to think these devices are legal is too stupid to have access to firearms. Or cars. Or pretty much anything that can be hazardous to other people.
I have actually shot a Glock 18. Much to my surprise, it was actually controllable. You had to manipulate the trigger to produce 3 round bursts but it wasn’t that hard. Somehow, though, I doubt that the bangers do that.
This is off-topic but the events around the “Rust Shooting” have been followed on this blog all along. Therefore, I thought that I would mention the latest development.
The Armorer for the movie, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, has just been found GUILTY of involuntary manslaughter. New Mexico has a fairly light penalty for this crime (IMHO) but, even so, she could be sentenced for up to 1 1/2 years in prison for it. She has not been sentenced yet. See this link:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/rust-movie-trial-verdict-shooting-b2508339.html
Alec Baldwin, himself, is next on the agenda. His trial, on similar charges, is (currently) scheduled to start on 9JUL2024.
Now, I have no problem with this jury verdict. It is clear that safety was mishandled on the set. Live ammunition should never have been on the set and, if it was there, a competent Armorer should have detected it and removed it. The jury listened to the evidence and reached their verdict. I totally accept their verdict.
The question now is, What about Alec Baldwin? To my mind, he is even more guilty of manslaughter than the Armorer. He is the man who mishandled the revolver and who actually pulled the trigger thereby sending one person to her death and wounding another.
So, if he is found GUILTY of involuntary manslaughter too and receives something near the maximum sentence, under the law, then I will say that JUSTICE has (finally) been served all around.
However, if Alec Baldwin “beats the rap” or if he is now offered (and accepts) a “sweetheart plea deal”, then I will be screaming “Two-Tiered Justice System” at the top of my voice!
I look forward to seeing the final outcome of this case. Will it be “Justice for All”? Or will it be what I speculated about in previous blog posts? Will it be a case of making the Armorer the Scapegoat so as to clear the way for Big-Leftist Baldwin to dance away “Scot Free”?
I suppose that, with the slow turning of the “Wheels of Justice”, we will eventually have the definitive answer.
Will it be “Justice for All”? Or will it be what I speculated about in previous blog posts? Will it be a case of making the Armorer the Scapegoat so as to clear the way for Big-Leftist Baldwin to dance away “Scot Free”?
Third option: Will Big-Leftist Baldwin be convicted but be sentenced to “community service”, which he may serve by becoming a “charity spokesperson” … for Everytown, Brady, or Giffords?
The terrible ads practically write themselves: Who better to know how dangerous guns are than a man who “accidentally” shot and killed someone? And as it’s 100% in line with his personal ideology and values, that’s some “punishment”!
@ Archer – “Third option…”
Your speculation is consistent with the operating methods of the American Left.
One of their guiding principles is “too never let a crisis go to waste”. It would just be like the Left to exploit the tragic death of Halyna Hutchins to advance their firearms-prohibition agenda.
Also, the Left has a policy of “taking care of their own”. If it becomes necessary to toss someone overboard, then they usually also toss them a lifeline at the same time.
If someone on the Left takes “a hit for the team”, then the Left (typically) finds some way to reward them. Similar to the case where a Mafia figure, who gets killed or serves a long term in prison for loyal service to “The Family”, can expect that his own family will “be taken care of” afterward. The reason is the same. To reward loyalty in its people.
We have seen it before. People who take a hit for the Left and get their own name tarnished are rewarded in the end. The Left uses several methods:
1) Well paid speaking tours to spread left-wing propaganda.
2) Lucrative book deals
3) Appointment to well-paid positions on boards or jobs in the beltway or in the media.
4) Really good service can be paid with foundation money (Example: Clinton Foundation – AKA “Clinton Cash”)
Sometimes the Left even gets innovative. For example, in the case of Hunter Biden’s Art Work sales. See this link:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/politics/hunter-biden-art-show/index.html
So, you may be correct. If Alec Baldwin has to “take a hit for the team” over the Rust Shooting, the Left may use that as a propaganda tool and as a venue to compensate him for his trouble.
As you note, a well-paid speaking tour with Baldwin spreading Anti-gun propaganda is a possibility.
They could also connect Baldwin up with a “Ghost Writer” and create a book that is heavy with anti-gun propaganda. Then Baldwin could receive a fat, 7-figure advance payment for his book. Baldwin could then pocket the advance payment but announce that the profits from the sale of the book would go to some anti-gun organization.
The Left could “kill two birds with one stone” with this approach. Baldwin would be compensated and he would continue to be their propaganda tool and function as a conduit to send some cash to the anti-gunners.
Trust me. The Left has (probably) already figured out methods to exploit the Rust Shooting. They will see that Baldwin does not suffer too much. Like the Mafia, the American Left takes care of their own. It pays off in terms of loyalty. Not only to the one who sacrificed to serve them but as an example, of the rewards of loyalty, to other leftists.
In Islam, a martyr is promised 72 virgins in the afterlife. The American Left rewards their martyrs with more substantial payments in the here and now! 🙂
The main reason criminals have not used full-auto until now was that:
* Smuggling in an illegal full-auto gun was significantly more expensive than buying a stolen non-auto gun.
* The federal government was merciless in punishing people with illegal full-auto guns.
What has changed is that:
* This is cheap to make and easy to smuggle in.
* A major political party has decided that we have too many criminals to imprison them all, and that the racial imbalance in prisons must be eliminated.
So what we can expect is that:
* The government will be reluctant to punish criminals for having this device, if they are already “overrepresented” in prisons — and therefore, use of this device among criminals will grow ever more widespread.
* If a member of an ethnic group NOT overrepresented in prison is caught with one of these devices, the prosecution will be merciless — for the sake of prisoner Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and as a focus of their hatred of firearms in private hands that they are in other circumstances inhibited from expressing.
“prisoner Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” is the only time they’ll want to be “inclusive” of white men.
Something to keep in mind.
Well, prison is one of the few (if not only) places where
* white men are underrepresented, and
* DEI advocates want to change that.
A recent ATF hosted TV news segment showed an agent and the reporter firing controllable mag dumps with a “Glock switch” equipped pistiol. They had to have been firing blanks or Simunitions.
And I think the FA Beretta model number is 93 rather than 94.
Comments are closed.