There are several points to consider here, one being that the people buying Glocks for the city's cops and the people suing Glock are likely not the same people, even though they both work for the city, and its possible neither one knows anything about what the other is doing until they read about it in the papers and online.
Another point is that every semi auto design gets reviewed by the subject matter experts at the ATF who determine if the design is "easily converted" and if so, do not approve it for sale to the public.
So, here's a question, say some 40 years down the road, after the design was approved, some bright fellow in some foreign land figures out a new "widgit" replacing one part of the original design, and makes it "easy to convert".
does that make the manufacturer of the original design liable for criminal conduct in your city, where the maker does no business, other than with a branch of the city govt?? And you demand the maker change their design as a result of criminal actions by a 3rd party??
(I'm slightly surprised that the city of Chicago isn't demanding direct cast payment from Glock, or is that in the fine print somewhere and just not being reported on, at this time??)
The AR 15/M16 is not a good analogy, as the M16 requires several "FA" parts in order to fire full auto, just the auto sear alone will not do it.
Quote:
|
This is like putting a knife to someone's throat and demanding their wallet; but it is being done by Cook County, not some scurrilous criminal... or is that my mistake?
|
Its not a mistake, you're just repeating yourself!
