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.
City of Chicago suing Glock
- Thread starter 44 AMP
- Start date
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.
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.
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/local/park-ridge-chicagoland-bells-weapons-toronto-ontario-canada/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_desc=gun+store&find_loc=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 - 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/local/park-ridge-chicagoland-bells-weapons-toronto-ontario-canada/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_desc=gun+store&find_loc=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.
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???
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
Administrator
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.
In the news again today, apparently 13 state AG's (all from the same political party) have signed a letter expressing their interest in the lawsuit.
Also in the reporting of this is the statement that the Chicago lawsuit admits that the "Glock Switches" are coming from China.
Get that point? From China, not from Glock. SO WHY is Chicago suing Glock and NOT SUING CHINA????
I realize the real world answer is probably "because they can" and "China won't care about our lawsuit", but in legal terms, why is CHINA not being sued for what they are DOING and Glock is being sued for something they DID NOT DO???
Is it a Chicago thing? or something else??
another point is that how is it ok for the Fed govt to approve something as legal and a city sue the maker because they feel differently??
I am past sick and tired of the govt (at any level) deciding a product is legal and then years later, with no change to the product, rule that it isn't.
Bump stocks and pistol braces, and now, apparently Glock pistols come to mind...
Also in the reporting of this is the statement that the Chicago lawsuit admits that the "Glock Switches" are coming from China.
Get that point? From China, not from Glock. SO WHY is Chicago suing Glock and NOT SUING CHINA????
I realize the real world answer is probably "because they can" and "China won't care about our lawsuit", but in legal terms, why is CHINA not being sued for what they are DOING and Glock is being sued for something they DID NOT DO???
Is it a Chicago thing? or something else??
another point is that how is it ok for the Fed govt to approve something as legal and a city sue the maker because they feel differently??
I am past sick and tired of the govt (at any level) deciding a product is legal and then years later, with no change to the product, rule that it isn't.
Bump stocks and pistol braces, and now, apparently Glock pistols come to mind...
This is how you run a shakedown via lawsuits. I've seen and heard of lots of cases of this when people sue doctors and hospitals. Basically, you sue for some ridiculous amount of money that, even if you had a legitimate case, no judge would ever award to you. The organization you're suing then offers you substantially less to settle out of court because, even though they know they could win in court, the settlement costs less in both money and bad publicity than fighting your lawsuit would. Chicago may very well know that they have no legitimate case nor even standing for one, but they're hoping that Glock will throw some money at them to make them shut up and go away rather than pay lots of lawyers to fight it out in court while having their name drug through the mud in the process.
Like I said, Chicago politicians love nothing more than extorting money out of people and if they can do it to a gun maker and score some political points, all the better in their minds. I personally hope that Glock is smart enough to realize that spending the time and money to fight this will be worth it in the long run because I predict that if they roll over and pay the Chicago extortionists off, it will only cause elected extortionists in other jurisdictions to try the same stunt not only with Glock but with other gun makers too.
Excellent point.
Every time a gun-grabber uses the phrase 'common sense' I'd like to take them by the scruff of the neck and make them read a week's worth of posts on this site. There's more real 'common sense' here than you could shake a stick at. Seeing the real thing might just make them think.
I would like to point out that Chicago didn't try this suit while Gaston Glock was still alive.
I have no idea what the current management of Glock will consider their best option (fight it in court or settle) but I feel sure Herr Glock would have told them the Germanic equivalent of "bite me!"
I have no idea what the current management of Glock will consider their best option (fight it in court or settle) but I feel sure Herr Glock would have told them the Germanic equivalent of "bite me!"
imaginary conversation
Webleymkv has hit the nail squarely on the head, with great force and accuracy but no rancor. I am awed by his lack of mean-spiritedness.
Here is an imaginary conversation between a Glock representative and someone from Cook County, regarding settling the lawsuit against Glock
Glock guy: How can you sue us for making legal guns? Your PD uses our guns and seems happy with them.
Cook: They like them a lot! Settle with us and we'll keep buying them... fight us, maybe we shop elsewhere and so do other agencies.
Glock: Settling a frivolous suit does not sit well with us, and cuts into our bottom line.
Cook: So, settle with us and then raise your prices to cover your losses.
Glock: Then you pay more...
Cook: We don't pay more, the taxpayers pay more. Settle, raise your prices 20%, use 10% to cover settlement costs, and then you and I split the other 10% between the two of us.
Glock: But that's bribery!
Cook: It looks good to the public. We sock it to the evil merchants of death, you still sell your product at a profit, and the public is happy to pay more taxes to get machine guns off the street.
Glock: This gets no machine guns off the street... but it does pad our bottom line; maybe I can sell this to management.
Of course, if he does sell it to management then Glock is guilty of bribery and Cook has a handle on them that they lacked previously. And although Cook is guilt of accepting a bribe, who is going to arrest/charge them?
It is a game, and there is a reason that Capone finally went down, not for racketeering, extortion, or murder, but for tax evasion. The IRS got him for not paying income tax on his illegal profits, not for the laws he broke to get those profits.
Webleymkv has hit the nail squarely on the head, with great force and accuracy but no rancor. I am awed by his lack of mean-spiritedness.
Here is an imaginary conversation between a Glock representative and someone from Cook County, regarding settling the lawsuit against Glock
Glock guy: How can you sue us for making legal guns? Your PD uses our guns and seems happy with them.
Cook: They like them a lot! Settle with us and we'll keep buying them... fight us, maybe we shop elsewhere and so do other agencies.
Glock: Settling a frivolous suit does not sit well with us, and cuts into our bottom line.
Cook: So, settle with us and then raise your prices to cover your losses.
Glock: Then you pay more...
Cook: We don't pay more, the taxpayers pay more. Settle, raise your prices 20%, use 10% to cover settlement costs, and then you and I split the other 10% between the two of us.
Glock: But that's bribery!
Cook: It looks good to the public. We sock it to the evil merchants of death, you still sell your product at a profit, and the public is happy to pay more taxes to get machine guns off the street.
Glock: This gets no machine guns off the street... but it does pad our bottom line; maybe I can sell this to management.
Of course, if he does sell it to management then Glock is guilty of bribery and Cook has a handle on them that they lacked previously. And although Cook is guilt of accepting a bribe, who is going to arrest/charge them?
It is a game, and there is a reason that Capone finally went down, not for racketeering, extortion, or murder, but for tax evasion. The IRS got him for not paying income tax on his illegal profits, not for the laws he broke to get those profits.
Windy City?
Bobcat45, are you a former resident of the windy city? That's not wind, it is the gaseous output of the local politicians.
I can recall once upon a time trying to claim a promised refund on an airport car service ride. Cost me 40 bucks for the last minute cab in addition to the airport ride I had prepaid. They just do not show up.
I quickly learned that the car service was owned by a Mrs. Daley and the promised refund? No one has collected a refund, ever.
Bobcat45, are you a former resident of the windy city? That's not wind, it is the gaseous output of the local politicians.
I can recall once upon a time trying to claim a promised refund on an airport car service ride. Cost me 40 bucks for the last minute cab in addition to the airport ride I had prepaid. They just do not show up.
I quickly learned that the car service was owned by a Mrs. Daley and the promised refund? No one has collected a refund, ever.
Rickklin, I am. Which is why I take the "unfairness" of this lawsuit personally; growing up, not understanding that "the rules" as written bore only the most tenuous connection to the rules by which people lived and got along is a good way to collect some lumps and bruises.
Two things interest me.
The first is how Glock will respond to the suit and how the issue eventually plays out. The chess game, move by move (or the boxing match, blow by blow).
The second is whether or not Glock's striker fired design is so different from other striker fired designs that Glock, and only Glock, is 'responsible' for selling a pistol that is 'easily converted' to automatic fire. To me this is pivotal - if Glocks are, by design, significantly more subject to conversion to full auto than other popular pistols, then the suit is sort of understandable...sort of I guess.
You can purchase an M16 auto sear on the web. I will not post the link but it is easily found. As far as I know it is legal to purchase, to replace a worn-out part in a legally-owned M16.
Aside: the M16 / AR-15 was introduced in the 1963-1965 period, which was more than 20 years before the Registry was effectively closed in 1986, so there are probably a number of registered, legal, M16s in private hands. No idea of the number; never wanted full-auto, the thought of my carefully prepared brass being scattered around like broadcasting seeds in the garden makes me shudder. OTOH if the brass would take root and grow into brass bushes, to provide new unfired SAMMI spec brass to pick next year, I'd not be so reluctant. Sorry.
My (admittedly imperfect) understanding is that if you have a semi-automatic AR-15 you are legal (Federal, not necessarily state) but as soon as you take delivery of that M16 auto sear you have an illegal, unregistered machine gun. No idea of the situation where you have an AR-15 as well as a registered M16 with a worn-out sear, and buy a replacement...are you only 'in violation' until the old sear is replaced and disposed of? Does this mean that, not owning a Glock, I could go on Amazon and buy a Glock switch, and still be legal? But if I threw it in my parts box and forgot about it, and in a year or two bought a Glock, I'd be guilty of 'constructive possession' of a machine gun and ATF could come and get me?
Chicago has some wonderful things. The Museum of Science and Industry https://www.msichicago.org/ is one. Some of the 'street food' - Italian Beef sanwhiches, Vienna Beef hot dogs, and so forth - just great! Overall, the interpersonal good will and a kind of "Can Do!" attitude that were prevalent in those days went a long way toward taking some of the sting out of the blatant corruption and casual illegality of daily life. But I'm a simple person, I like to know the rules and fear unintentionally breaking some obscure law. So the city, on the one hand buys Glocks for their PD, but on the other hand sues Glock for making and selling those same pistols - no thanks, not a place I'd be comfortable visiting again even though I spent the first 35 years of my life there.
To me this is a shakedown; the county has no intention of "beating" Glock, only beating them into submission and reaping financial benefit. 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?
Two things interest me.
The first is how Glock will respond to the suit and how the issue eventually plays out. The chess game, move by move (or the boxing match, blow by blow).
The second is whether or not Glock's striker fired design is so different from other striker fired designs that Glock, and only Glock, is 'responsible' for selling a pistol that is 'easily converted' to automatic fire. To me this is pivotal - if Glocks are, by design, significantly more subject to conversion to full auto than other popular pistols, then the suit is sort of understandable...sort of I guess.
You can purchase an M16 auto sear on the web. I will not post the link but it is easily found. As far as I know it is legal to purchase, to replace a worn-out part in a legally-owned M16.
Aside: the M16 / AR-15 was introduced in the 1963-1965 period, which was more than 20 years before the Registry was effectively closed in 1986, so there are probably a number of registered, legal, M16s in private hands. No idea of the number; never wanted full-auto, the thought of my carefully prepared brass being scattered around like broadcasting seeds in the garden makes me shudder. OTOH if the brass would take root and grow into brass bushes, to provide new unfired SAMMI spec brass to pick next year, I'd not be so reluctant. Sorry.
My (admittedly imperfect) understanding is that if you have a semi-automatic AR-15 you are legal (Federal, not necessarily state) but as soon as you take delivery of that M16 auto sear you have an illegal, unregistered machine gun. No idea of the situation where you have an AR-15 as well as a registered M16 with a worn-out sear, and buy a replacement...are you only 'in violation' until the old sear is replaced and disposed of? Does this mean that, not owning a Glock, I could go on Amazon and buy a Glock switch, and still be legal? But if I threw it in my parts box and forgot about it, and in a year or two bought a Glock, I'd be guilty of 'constructive possession' of a machine gun and ATF could come and get me?
Chicago has some wonderful things. The Museum of Science and Industry https://www.msichicago.org/ is one. Some of the 'street food' - Italian Beef sanwhiches, Vienna Beef hot dogs, and so forth - just great! Overall, the interpersonal good will and a kind of "Can Do!" attitude that were prevalent in those days went a long way toward taking some of the sting out of the blatant corruption and casual illegality of daily life. But I'm a simple person, I like to know the rules and fear unintentionally breaking some obscure law. So the city, on the one hand buys Glocks for their PD, but on the other hand sues Glock for making and selling those same pistols - no thanks, not a place I'd be comfortable visiting again even though I spent the first 35 years of my life there.
To me this is a shakedown; the county has no intention of "beating" Glock, only beating them into submission and reaping financial benefit. 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?
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.
Its not a mistake, you're just repeating yourself!
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.
Its not a mistake, you're just repeating yourself!
Jim Watson
New member
Local TV news last night had a pearl clutching "Viewed with alarm, reported with concern" feature on The Switch. How easy it is to buy or make, how common on Da Street, how wild the fire - with appearance by victims and heirs of spray shooting - how even an expert AGE cannot control it, etc. Only as an afterthought did a Fed state that it was already against the law.
Well obviously the solution is to make it illegaler.
Note: I'd like to, but I cannot take credit for 'illegaler'. I don't know who made it up but I really like it. I am constantly just totally gobsmaked/dumbfounded at how we have reached a point where real, honest-to-Gosh 'common sense' is getting so rare as to be considered a super power. I realize there have always been whack jobs among us but now they're in positions of power in government and the media.
This is the bedrock of gun control. Since it is against the law to shoot people for fun or profit, and people still do it, we have to have laws that cover what you shoot them with...
How big it is, or isn't, how many shots it holds, how fast it shoots, NONE of this matters to the people who get shot.
But its important to the political types. Making something that is already a crime more of a crime makes it look like they are doing something and possibly even give a snit about the problem. (they don't, they just want to look like they do)
Got a problem with thugs shooting people in your city?? Don't blame the thugs, don't allow the police to catch them, don't have the courts lock them away for long periods of time, just sue the gunmakers, that will surely fix things....
Neat, slick, CHEAP, and entirely wrong....
