City of Chicago suing Glock

[44 AMP]

The lawsuit, filed with the Cook County Circuit Court, alleges that Glock is selling semi-automatic pistols which are easily converted into machine guns using a cheap device known as a “Glock switch”.

I'm pretty sure I understand the real motivation behind this, but I wonder what can they claim as a legal basis to do this???

As far as I know, absent prior Federal approval, making a machinegun is a Federal Crime. Carrying one on Chicago streets is another set of crimes on top of that. I'd be surprised if the majority of the people found with those illegal guns aren't also "felon in possession" and that is yet another crime.

I hear an Austrian accented voice from beyond saying "Your criminals are not our problem!!"

How is suing any manufacturer for the criminal modification and misuse of their product the right thing to do??

Thoughts??

[BobCat45]

44 AMP said:

How is suing any manufacturer for the criminal modification and misuse of their product the right thing to do??

It isn't right.

Nobody there cares about "right".

I grew up there and from my experience those in power only care about their power - how to hold on to it, how to enhance it, and how to take power away from everybody else.

They hold the idea of "right" in contempt and believe that anyone "trying to do the right thing" is a fool, a damned fool, or a liar.

They sue Glock, it costs Glock to defend themselves, maybe they tack on a "litigation fee" to guns sold in Illinois to help defray the costs. Or maybe they withdraw from that market.

In a "real" world there is no way Glock can be held responsible for selling something that is legal everywhere but can be illegally modified or misused, but this is not the real world, it is Cook County Illinois. There are reasons people there refer to it as Crook County.

Please forgive me for being so cynical but I'm sick of hearing "that's not fair!" - of course it isn't fair! It is a game and the one who causes their opponent the most pain / cost / loss is the winner.

And if Cook County loses round one, they'll appeal and try to keep Glock bleeding lawyers fees until they settle and agree to redesign their pistols (in some unworkable manner) and pay the county a ransom.

Sorry.

[DaleA]

It isn't right.
Nobody there cares about "right".

This^^^.

Similar to the KIA/Hyundai lawsuit where they sued the manufacturers because the cars were too easy to steal.

https://www.hbsslaw.com/hyundai-kia-...eft-defect/faq

And it's not just Cook County...my state's attorney general, Keith Ellison, (Minnesota) was on board for suing KIA/Hyundai and has supported Mexico in its suit against American gun manufacturers.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024...that%20country.

[LeverGunFan]

Glock pistols are approved as duty weapons for the Chicago PolIce Department. Should make for an awkward conversation between Glock, the police officers and the city.

[Mike38]

Cook County / Chicago politicians are too lazy and too stupid to do what's right, fight crime, arrest criminals, and keep them in jail. No, it's easier to sue a company making a legal product just so they can say that they are doing something.

[BobCat45]

There is an article entitled NSSF Calls on Congress to Investigate 'Conspiracy' Behind Chicago's Lawsuit Against Glock at https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2...glock-n1224261 that explains some details about who is involved in this.

First, be aware that the website bearingarms.com is not entirely objective - it is biased, in fact. Their bias is in favor of things I respect, like the Bill of Rights, but one cannot pretend it is coldly objective.

Second, I apologize if posting this link violates a forum rule or is deemed inflammatory. I did not see a rule specifically prohibiting such a link but might have missed something. If it is "bad" please delete it.

[44 AMP]

Glock pistols are approved as duty weapons for the Chicago PolIce Department.

So, the city of Chicago is suing Glock for making the pistol that Chicago police use???

[DaleA]

First, be aware that the website bearingarms.com is not entirely objective - it is biased, in fact.

Thanks for the disclaimer. It's refreshing to see someone acknowledge the bias of a website. I'm still waiting for a left-leaning group to do this.

P.S. My spouse claims I'm at risk for serious dental problems due to my teeth grinding every time I hear Public Radio/TV claim to be unbiased---I believe their idea of an 'honest debate about guns' would be between someone who believes only the military and police should be allowed firearms of ANY type and someone who believes that no one at all, even military and police should have guns.

[Nathan]

Why are they not holding Jeff Bezos criminally liable. Most were sold on his website from what I hear.

[georgehwbush]

"Thanks for the disclaimer. It's refreshing to see someone acknowledge the bias of a website. I'm still waiting for a left-leaning group to do this."

everyone is biased, there is no "neutral" ! it simply doesn't exist.

some of us try to be fair about our biases and consider the other perspective also, but we are still biased.

"fair" nothing fair in government. it's all about power (aka control) but that rant belongs in >/dev/null

anyway my hope is that the judges sees the truth and throws the case out. and yes i'm biased.

[44 AMP]

Chicago filed the suit in a Cook County Court. Any judge who is "biased" to seeing the truth, and tosses the suit for having no merit, won't be a Cook County Judge very long.

I'm confident which ever judge winds up with the case will hear it, and rule in Chicago's favor, passing the buck to the various appeals courts to deal with it.

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Chicago filed the suit in a Cook County Court. Any judge who is "biased" to seeing the truth, and tosses the suit for having no merit, won't be a Cook County Judge very long.

I'm confident which ever judge winds up with the case will hear it, and rule in Chicago's favor, passing the buck to the various appeals courts to deal with it.

Unfortunately, that seems to be our judicial system now. The constitution has been taken out of the lower courts.

[44 AMP]

The constitution has been taken out of the lower courts.

Aren't nearly all the judges of the lower courts elected positions?? Not appointed positions like Federal judges??

Elected judges (and other elected officials) have a tendency to rule the way they believe will get them re-elected, and aren't we, the people, who elected them responsible for that??

In a democracy, you don't always get the best people in office, you get the people who got the most votes, and that isn't often the same thing.

[BobCat45]

The people who get the most votes are often the people who raised the most money. More money comes from those who have lots of it than from those who have little, unless you get enough little guys on your side, or your opponent alienates enough rich guys.

If CPD uses Glocks, someone in CPD has some connection to Glock and may not want to alienate them. If that someone has the ear of the judge who gets the case, then that judge does not need to be "biased toward seeing the truth", he only needs to know which side of the bread has butter on it.

Win or lose on the first engagement, the case will not be over; it will be appealed and it is just a matter of how high it gets - how high the costs get for the two sides.

And I have been gone from there for close to forty years so I don't know anything about the composition or leanings of the Illinois Supreme Court, but it has always been the case that much of the State is opposed to the Chicago Machine, simply because they are disenfranchised by the system / population statistics. So how the Illinois Supreme Court might rule is well beyond my understanding.

This will be an amusing case to watch. I'd like to hear from people on TFL who understand the Glock striker-fired system and how the Glock Switch interacts with it - in other words how simple or difficult it would be for Glock to simply change it enough to meet the demands of the lawsuit - versus endless court dates and attorney fees.

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Aren't nearly all the judges of the lower courts elected positions?? Not appointed positions like Federal judges??

Elected judges (and other elected officials) have a tendency to rule the way they believe will get them re-elected, and aren't we, the people, who elected them responsible for that??

In a democracy, you don't always get the best people in office, you get the people who got the most votes, and that isn't often the same thing.

I agree with you up to a point. I see just as many federal judges who do not follow the constitution as I see state judges. I also see a major part of the problem is many elected officials have forgotten we are a constitutional republic and no matter how many votes they received, they all take a oath to follow the constitution. Do bad people get reelected? you bet. Will/can that change? Only when we the people start holding those who break the constitution accountable. That, I have not seen in any of our fine states.

[44 AMP]

My point was that when elected officials don't obey the Constitution, the people to blame (besides the individual official) are the ones who elected them.

Federal judges that are appointed, so then they don't "behave" we have to blame the administration that appointed them, not the public, directly.

There are circumstances where malfeasance in office can get them removed. When it is misfeasance, generally speaking, the people's only course of action is to not return them to office.

Also remember that for each of us who recognize the error these judges are committing, there are as many (or more) misinformed, or under informed people with the opposite viewpoint.

Which is usually why those judges got elected and get re-elected to begin with.

[FITASC]

How is suing any manufacturer for the criminal modification and misuse of their product the right thing to do??

Thoughts??

It's the food-fight spaghetti method - throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. With the way they are currently violating all of the laws regarding criminal invaders, and opposite political folks, all it will take is the right Soros-bought judge and DA

[cdoc42]

I think most "voters" have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. A civil war will wake them up but they will still have no idea what side they should be on. Blame welfare and the left's consistent plan to corral public intellect.

[44 AMP]

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't the fact that city of Chicago approved the Glock for their own police (and bought how many???) be a reasonable argument for the defense against the claim that Glock is somehow negligent in the design of their pistols??

[BobCat45]

I doubt the city is concerned that their own police will buy Glock switches and convert their pistols to full-auto.

Maybe they want Glock to outfit their entire department, along with the entire Illinois State Police, with the latest models, at zero cost, in return for the lawsuit going away.

[Webleymkv]

There's another angle of this to consider: money. While Chicago has a well-deserved reputation for being opposed to anything and everything 2A, if there's one thing that Chicago politicians love more than banning guns it's having their hands in someone else's pocket. I don't think for a moment that the city of Chicago has any qualms about shaking down any number of companies, organizations, or individuals for money, the fact that Glock makes and sells guns just makes it all the more enticing to them.

[44 AMP]

Is there even a single operating gunshop within the juridiction of the City of Chicago??

If so, how many Glocks have they sold to city residents??

And how many of those legally owned pistols have been involved in crimes?? How many involved in crimes committed by their legal owners??

If the answer is even 1 (ONE) Glock is still the wrong people to sue.

[BobCat45]

Webleymkv - You are exactly right, in my opinion. It is a shake-down; "nice business you got there... too bad if it happened to burn down..." as well as misdirecting public anger toward Glock, instead of toward their constituents who are doing the shooting. How many full-auto converted Glocks have even been used in shootings in Chicago? Any?

44 AMP - You motivated me to fire up a search engine and look for "Bells gun shop" on Mannheim road, in Franklin Park on the Northwest side. It was there that I shot a revolver for the first time - a .22 S&W; rented the revolver, bought a box of .22 cartridges and a paper target, and tried to hit the target at the indoor range in back of the shop. I was a kid, my dad was with me or they never would have rented it to me. It is gone but I came up with a 2009 news story https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...anada/1868266/ about the crooked owner getting busted for illegally exporting guns to Canada.

But one of the search results was 'yelp' for gun stores in Franklin Park so I changed the city to Chicago like this: https://www.yelp.com/search?find_des...=Chicago%2C+IL and found no gun stores in the city, but a couple in the suburbs that I remembered from the old days. In 1972 I bought my first double action revolver, a .357 Ruger Security Six at Shore Galleries, for the princely sum of $87.50 + tax. Actually found the receipt... I suppose that tells too much about what a terrible packrat I am. So anyway, thanks for asking - got me looking, which is always a good thing.

[44 AMP]

OK, so current available information is that there are no gun shops in Chicago, which means no Glocks are sold in Chicago, and so the only business Glock does (has ever done??) in Chicago is their contract with the city government of Chicago.

SO, what we have is a city suing a manufacturer that does no business with the public within city limits.....How do they even have legal standing???

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

OK, so current available information is that there are no gun shops in Chicago, which means no Glocks are sold in Chicago, and so the only business Glock does (has ever done??) in Chicago is their contract with the city government of Chicago.

SO, what we have is a city suing a manufacturer that does no business with the public within city limits.....How do they even have legal standing???

If Glock's attorneys are on top of their game (& I have no reason to believe otherwise), this will be one of their first lines of defense.