TexasCHLforum.com

This lengthy story states that Glock (the company) is under investigation by U.S. officials for possible tax irregularities and other legal issues:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... op+stories" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have no opinion one way or the other. Tax and import-export law are so complicated that probably any company could be prosecuted if the investigation went deep enough.

- Jim

Unfortunately a lot of industrial "geniuses" don't translate their ability into business genius.

Fascinating article Jim. Thanks for posting. Corruption seems rampant at Glock. Shady dealings, payoffs, illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, offshore accounts, shell corporations. They should make a movie out of this.

Sounds somewhat similar to the stories we've heard coming out of Wall Street this past year.

Just keep in mind that at this point, most of this information is allegations or rumors.
the FBI has been wrong, or at least failed to prove its case.

The IRS usually gets their pound of flesh, though.

- Jim

joe817 wrote:Fascinating article Jim. Thanks for posting. Corruption seems rampant at Glock. Shady dealings, payoffs, illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, offshore accounts, shell corporations.

Yeah but at least they are not associated with the "moonies"

mr.72 wrote:

joe817 wrote:Fascinating article Jim. Thanks for posting. Corruption seems rampant at Glock. Shady dealings, payoffs, illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, offshore accounts, shell corporations.

Yeah but at least they are not associated with the "moonies"

Give 'em time mr.72. Give 'em time.

mr.72 wrote:

joe817 wrote:Fascinating article Jim. Thanks for posting. Corruption seems rampant at Glock. Shady dealings, payoffs, illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, offshore accounts, shell corporations.

Yeah but at least they are not associated with the "moonies"

But don't you carry a 'Moon Gun' yourself Mr. 72??

Keith B wrote: But don't you carry a 'Moon Gun' yourself Mr. 72??

I would, but it's doing time in the Massachusetts Moonie Gun Clinic.

But alas, I was trying to draw attention to what I see as hypocrisy. I hear Kahr attacked all the time because of the assumed association with the Moonies, but rarely do I hear anyone refusing to buy a Glock because of alleged illegal activity by the company. Illegal is ok, but owned by the son of Sun Moon is not.

FWIW I would buy a Glock, Kahr, a gun built by communists in China, or one hand-crafted by Fidel Castro himself if it was a quality product that worked well and met my needs as a user. I gave up judging products based on the morality, ethics or religious beliefs of their company's ownership a long time ago. Moral or legal corruption at some level in business and politics is all but universal. The only thing not so universal is our awareness of it.

My latest copy of the NRA magazine had photos of Glock contributing
$50,000 to the NRA. I believe the money was going towards a shooting
site in New Mexico.

Glock must be doing OK if they can make such a healthy donation.

If an average Glock costs $500 for simplicity's sake, they had to sell
just 100 to make that donation. Say 200 Glocks since the retailer
is also involved in the transaction.

SIA

very interesting....

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:My latest copy of the NRA magazine had photos of Glock contributing
$50,000 to the NRA. I believe the money was going towards a shooting
site in New Mexico.

Glock must be doing OK if they can make such a healthy donation.

If an average Glock costs $500 for simplicity's sake, they had to sell
just 100 to make that donation. Say 200 Glocks since the retailer
is also involved in the transaction.

SIA

Actually that article says that the total contributed to NRA Organizations was $115,000.

seamusTX wrote: I have no opinion one way or the other. Tax and import-export law are so complicated that probably any company could be prosecuted if the investigation went deep enough.

- Jim

I've always felt that this complicating if laws is intentional. It is a tool that government uses it "legally" go after whoever they want to go after.

I was just on a thread about the liquor laws of Texas and how complicated they are. If the local government wants to shut down a bar, all one really has to do is go hang out there and observe what silly laws get broken and viola, the fines can start rolling in. It won't take long and that bar is gone.

Texas traffic laws are the same way. If an officer wants to pull over a car, it only would take a couple minutes before the officer would observe some sort of infraction and the lights can come on.

TAX LAWS?? The worst.

I don't know if the Glock story is true and on some levels, I don't care. I'm on my BlackBerry now so I haven't even read it but for my comment, I don't need to. This administration HATES private ownership of guns and if this makes firearms harder for us lowly citizens to get, that's their game. What better way to hurt the private firearms industry than to go after the biggest player that doesn't have any US military contracts (that I know of).

TDDude wrote: This administration HATES private ownership of guns and if this makes firearms harder for us lowly citizens to get, that's their game. What better way to hurt the private firearms industry than to go after the biggest player that doesn't have any US military contracts (that I know of).

The Glock issues and investigations predate the Obama administration.

I think it'd be a very bad idea for gun owners to defend disregard for the law by a gun manufacturer.

mr.72 wrote:The Glock issues and investigations predate the Obama administration.

I think it'd be a very bad idea for gun owners to defend disregard for the law by a gun manufacturer.

I agree that we need to follow the law and fragrant violators need to be prosecuted. My complaint is that some laws are written so that it's impossible to follow everything and that administrations then are able to pick and choose who they want to go after.

I guess I'll go ahead and read the article now.

TDDude wrote:My complaint is that some laws are written so that it's impossible to follow everything and that administrations then are able to pick and choose who they want to go after.

Well, that appears to be based on a couple of assumptions:

1. Glock was just going about regular business as any other normal business would do, and ran afoul of some obscure or conflicting minutiae of law
2. The investigations into Glock are politically motivated

Unfortunately, if the allegations outlined in this article wind up being found to be true, then Glock has been very deliberately violating a lot of non-obscure, clear and obvious laws, and there is an elaborate web employed to obscure investigation into this activity. Also it appears clear that these are not politically-motivated investigations, but who knows and who cares. If I am speeding and I get a ticket in Austin, is it politically-motivated because Austin tends to be more liberal than where I live, and I am far more conservative than the Austin city council? Well if Glock is breaking the law then any investigation is valid, whether it is politically-motivated or not. I don't think this is what you are doing, but to suggest that politically-motivated investigations have no merit because of the motivation, regardless of whether the party is guilty, is tantamount to justifying breaking the law as long as you ascribe to a particular set of political views.

This type of hypocrisy is all too common in politics. Bill Clinton's purjury is one such example. We swept that under the rug. When you are a popular political figure, you can commit crimes with impunity. When you are unpopular, you get prosecuted. But in either case, the hypocrisy is in letting the guilty get away with it, and not in the investigation of the guilty. If we want Glock to get away with their alleged crimes because we agree with their politics, then we are joining in the same hypocrisy that allowed Clinton to get away with purjury and a whole host of unproven crimes that were not politically expedient to prosecute. Careful when you call the kettle black that you are not eventually revealed to be the pot.