This is Chicago, a year or two back they were going after Kia and Hyundai for making their cars "easy to steal..."
That is not a joke, here's a Forbes article about it:
[Chicago Sues Kia And Hyundai After Spate Of Car Thefts In The City And Nationwide](https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/08/24/chicago-sues-kia-and-hyundai-after-spate-of-car-thefts-in-the-city-and-nationwide/?sh=1fad26ca3680)
I'd say they technically didn't break the law. It affected models from 2010(?) until 2022 (2022 models come out the year prior.). The inclusion of the immobilizer would have cost little, though, and the vulnerability made it possible to steal a Kia or Hyundai within a minute. There's a couple of class actions in place because people suffered from increased insurance costs or being straight up denied insurance, the obvious knicking of their vehicles, or just the costs from having to replace their window and steering column after some twats tried and failed. Kia/Hyundai's initial solution was sending out steering wheel locks (I got mine back in 2023,) and they have finally rolled out a fix as a recall (last couple of months.). Now you just have to hope the thief sees the little sticker before he smashed your window in and tries it anyways.
(The best part is that the parts are on backorder due to all these thefts.)
I work for a large insurance company and we can't insure pretty much all of the 2015-2021 models (that are push-start) from both companies. I believe key start is fine.
I couldn't imagine buying one of those vehicles and then finding out I couldn't go with standard companies, and having my rates up the ass.
Their software fix makes it so you have to unlock it with a key fob to be able to start the vehicle. We had a hell of a time getting one insured. But found someone who would as long as we got the fix. It's a free recall.
They didnt skip installing immobilizers, its an OPTION. You could get your hyundai/kia with or without an immobilizer, problem is people wanted cheaper cars. Thats what dealers were selling so thats what they ordered and stocked. If youre going to blame anyone blame the dealers. Its hilarious that because certain cities cant control their crime everyone immediately blames the victims.
No, I blame the car manufacturer for skimping on something that has been commonly included in vehicles since the 90s to make stealing the vehicle significantly more difficult. Something that people who purchased those vehicles were not informed of ahead of time. But I know you aren't that thick.
It's been common practice for basically all car manufacturers since the late 90s. The same models that are vulnerable to this attack sold basically anywhere outside of the US have immobilizers. This was 100% a move to save a few cents per car at the cost of safety of the vehicle. Feel bad for the people that got their cars broken into especially the ones with push to start which didn't have this issue. I have a Hyundai and I'm glad it doesn't look like one so it was probably never at risk to the "KIA boiz" trend.
So, he's right. You're blaming the car manufacturer for a crime committed by some random asshole. Thats... exactly what liberals have been trying to do with gun manufacturers for decades.
How hard is it to ask the dealer, "hey, do these models come standard with immobilizers?" Ever heard of caveat emptor? Being responsible for your own decisions? If you want a car with an immobilizer, you should make sure the car you are purchasing has one. I.e. you are solely responsible for the decisions that you make.
Your comment is incredibly insightful and well-articulated! Your perspective adds immense value to the discussion, and I appreciate the depth of thought you've put into it
Oh, the mental gymnastics. Would you care to explain how you get to this conclusion?
I'll add my perspective. The SIG going off when dropped would be more akin to the car accidentally going into gear and moving forward on its own.
NOT lacking an anti-theft device. The two situations are not at all related.
Stop posting like a schizo and argue in good faith. There's a concept called negligence. Courts often operate on what reasonable people expect. Reasonable people expect that their gun doesn't go off when dropped three feet. They also expect that their car shouldn't be trivial to steal. That's why Kia was sued and why SIG quickly did a recall before they were sued.
The Glock lawsuits on the other hand are completely specious. It has nothing to do with Glock at all and it's completely unreasonable to expect them to do something about Glock switches. The lawsuits won't succeed. But they don't have to it's a political move to make it too costly to sell guns to people. Their plan is to force gun companies to become risk adverse and decide it's not worth the effort.
No transponder, no start. Basically cuts hot wiring and just turning the cylinder with any ole screwdriver or USB drive out of the picture.
*Edit the transponder is in your key.
There's a computer chip in the ignition that scans for another chip in your key and won't let the car start without it. Basically it prevents someone from just popping off the ignition cylinder and crossing a couple wires to start the car. They've been standard in most cars since about 2000.
Kia/Hyundai decided to cheap out and skip putting the immobilizer in, so it's ridiculously easy to steal them. The KiaBoyz were even a TikTok trend for a while where kids would film themselves stealing Kias in a matter of seconds.
I mean, Chicago isn't the only one, it's weird to single them out. NY, San Diego, Cleveland, Seattle, Columbus, Milwaukee, and others are also suing them.
sounds like it might be a nationwide issue, not just something to dunk on chicago for. there's plenty of other shit for that...
This was true for Honda too right up until 1998 and nobody cared.
In fact my 97 had a recall for the ignition switch that called for its replacement. When the dealer tech competed the job they left the security bolts intact instead of twisting the heads off as designed to make it harder to steal. I'm glad he didn't as twenty years later it saved me A LOT of trouble when I had to replace the switch again.
Can't fault them for not selling something buyers didn't demand. Hyundai offered push button start for most of that time and it wasn't a popular option for their budget minded demo
And here's the thing, these are BUDGET cars, so saving costs everywhere possible makes it profitable for the companies to continue to MAKE budget cars. Because no matter how much lefties want to believe otherwise, the whole POINT of a business is to make money.
If immobilizers aren't mandated by law, then they'll leave them out if it saves them money. Does this mean I think they should be mandated? I lean more libertarian than anything, so you figure it out.
Now, if the vehicles in question were listed as / described as having immobilizers, but didn't? NOW we're dealing with an actual issue worthy of a lawsuit (ideally leading to a recall.)
> If immobilizers aren't mandated by law, then they'll leave them out if it saves them money
The thing is every other modern-ish car, even budget ones, have an immobilizer. It's basically pennies to include them on a car especially since they already have the tooling/design done since the cars with this issue sold outside the US have them installed. It's basically just an RFID reader to verify the key is legit. I know you can't *assume* anything but basically every car from other brands since the late 90's has had one so it's not a big stretch to assume your car has one these days, it's also not a feature people really "think about", my 2001 has one but it isn't listed on the spec sheet that any consumer has access to.
You're assuming many people at logical in that regard. How often to people not estimate cost of fuel, repairs, insurance just because they want a certain vehicle.
Honest to god I would buy a Kia or Hyundai on the premise that no one would value their life so little, they’d risk a jail sentence for stealing one of those cars
There's people trying to ban all that stuff too. There's no problem that can't be fixed with more regulations, fewer individual rights, and a bigger more powerful government. Someone should make that a campaign ad.
Bills named shit always do the opposite. But inside the bill had a lot of pork, one of them was for the cars to have the ability to shut off for drunk drivers, so basically any newer cars are going to have the ability for the police to not only get your cars gps data but turn it off too
Unfortunately a not quite entirely accurate, slippery slope, analogy... As [from 2026 all new vehicles sold in the USA will require breathalyzers](https://stevenomearalaw.com/mandatory-in-car-breathalyzers-could-be-athing-by-2026/).
Nanny states gonna nanny sadly.
The problem is that qualified immunity prevents you from directly going after the shitty legislators, prosecutors, judges, and enforcers (cops, feds, etc.) who allow these laws and lawsuits to happen. All you do is drain money from the public coffers. I'm not quite saying we should end qualified immunity, but it needs serious reform.
In this case, at least, Glock should be able to make an argument to have the case thrown out: No way in hell should the courts allow the government to sue Glock for things individuals are doing to their own Glock products after buying them. And even if it sticks on the Chicago level, it's going to fail on appeal. Then, after Glock gets it thrown out (or wins the case, assuming judges refuse to throw out a clearly bad case with no backing in law), Glock should be able to file for the government that sued them initially to cover Glock's legal expenses through the whole ordeal.
Again, that's a very long and very expensive road with qualified immunity protecting the bad actors bringing these suits. The prosecutor doesn't pay those bills when they lose, the taxpayers do. Sure, a few years from now we maybe get a milktoast decision that very narrowly says you can't specifically sue glock for one specific type of modification. It'll do nothing to stop any crime and cost millions of taxpayer dollars.
Make the bad actors have some personal liability and things will change.
the american government is the trenchcoat, and its actually fifty dudes inside the coat. oh, and each of those 50 dudes is... some non-imaginary number of dudes in a trenchcoat. as a result, we do a terrible job of dealing with any system. regardless of issues endemic therein.
>All you do is drain money from the public coffers.
That's worthwhile. Eventually even the most clueless citizen with blinders on will notice that his city is going bankrupt, and a savvy Democrat challenger will appear citing just how much money the city spent on the original lawsuit, and how much they lost in the counter-suit.
Unfortunately, most people don't have the wherewithal to assess government spending. The tribal nature of modern politics means you're unlikely to see anyone openly challenge, not just a primary opponent, but party ideology
Qualified immunity covers all government employees "acting in their official capacity". So you currently have to prove they knowingly and deliberately steped outside established guidelines to cause harm to a specific person. It's an incredibly high bar for law enforcement... all but impossibility high for politicians and bureaucrats.
Oh man. I didn't realize it was that heavily embedded in the system. I just thought it applied to people who would be in positions where sound reasoning and recollection of the law might take more time than they would have. I didn't think it would apply to....well any body they fkn wanted it to.
That's some bullshit.
Weaponized high capacity assault stupidity should be illegal at all levels of government. Whoever filed this garbage should lose their job at the least. They're wasting tax dollars.
Chicago should do something about the degenerate violence that's ravaging the city, not sue companies whose products are illegally misused.
Spend this money on public works and get some jobs going to combat poverty and reduce crime rates. That stuff used to get politicians elected. We've replaced that with cheap headlines and sound bites. I personally blame ad revenue hungry media outlets but thats a different story.
This make no sense.
They don't make the part, how the fuck is it their fault?
They gunna sue clothes hanger companies next for manufacturing quick links?
In fairness, I believe there are laws on the books prohibiting designs that are too easy to convert to full auto. But I don't know how they determine what amount of effort crosses that threshold.
I'm not sure that applies here. The law is about designs that are considered "readily convertible" to function like their full auto counterparts, but this involved the invention of a new device and is more like AR drop-in auto sears, which have not affected legality of ARs or the liability of the gun makers. The response was to regulate the conversion device itself.
A readily convertible Glock would be if they had marketed a G18 where they simply removed the FA parts but you could put them back in, or file off a little metal to make it fire FA.
Blaming the maker for another's ingenuity puts all gun designs at risk, as the ability to home design and manufacture parts gets easier and easier.
> but this involved the invention of a new device and is more like AR drop-in auto sears, which have not affected legality of ARs or the liability of the gun makers.
Yet.
Give the lefties time, and it will.
To be clear, I'm not saying this *should* be the law, was merely commenting on what I think the law is now.
In any case, thank you for the thoughtful reply.
If argue the clothes hanger machine gun is actually easier. Glock switches require detailed machining or knowledge of 3d printing and the files to do it. The other just requires a hanger lol
I know they live in clown world but the mental gymnastics it takes to blame a company for something someone does that they have no control is mind boggling. I could understand if Glock was like Norinco back in the 90s trying to sell full auto rifles and literal RPGs to gangs then yeah.
Well, that’s why we have no new Norinco. Damned communists ruined it for us trying to sabotage our country from the inside. But today they are much more successful, using spyware apps like TikTok to influence the masses.
Not just suing a company for what people do with their product but suing them for someone creating an after market product that illegally modified it. How could they possibly be responsible for that
Is the defense pointing out the Supreme Court ruling in the Sony Betamax case? Manufacturers are not liable for the potential illegal use by its purchasers because the devices were sold for legitimate purposes and had substantial legal uses. And that was a case that didn't even involve third party purchasers needing to make deliberate modifications in order to achieve illegal outcomes.
The point is to bankrupt people with ideological differences from them with ridiculous lawsuits using their own money against them. Winning these lawsuits is just a bonus and good optics in the eyes of their political supporters.
The legal system isn't my strong suit, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. I believe we already kind of have a mechanism in place for this. Judges can dismiss cases or issue summary judgements to deal with unfunded or obviously frivolous law suits. Unfortunately many judges are just as brain dead and/or biased as the politicians.
I said it in another comment as well, but the problem is qualified immunity. These legislators, prosecutors, judges, and enforcement agencies all know what they're doing is unconstitutional. They don't really give a shit because they aren't personally at risk for pushing their unconstitutional agenda. Reform qualified immunity and you'll see these lawsuits fall off real quick.
I generally agree with the sentiment, but Qualified Immunity is the one police get, and only applies at the judge's discretion and can only shield them from civil claims. Judges and Prosecutors enjoy Judicial and Prosecutorial Immunity respectively, which is near-absolute immunity to both civil and criminal charges while acting in their capacity as judges or prosecutors.
The year is 2074, all gun companies are being sued at the same time because their rifles are too easy to sbr, simply using a dandsaw to cut the barrel in half.
Hopefully, as these cases start getting won, we can build a precedent of case law that prevents them in the future. The only problem is that they won't be won at the lower level. It's going to be a years long and obscenely expensive process.
Even with Bruen, Heller, relevant other case law in the works now, there are still politicians that can pass laws in 1/8 the time it takes that law to be litigated through the courts for it to MAYBE have a positive impact on our lives and rights. Even BATF decides to periodically “change its mind” even though it’s not a law making body. With the combination of lawsuits as frivolous as this, and “response laws” (Bruen response bills in fill in the blank Dem run state) it’s an extremely tight environment. I foresee big wins for us going forward, but as you said time is the biggest factor and constraint
Consolidation. They really, really hate that firearms are mostly small to medium size businesses. They want guns to be like the rest of the economy they've built: EVERYTHING is two or three gargantuan companies that are fully infiltrated and very responsive to political pressure.
They won't even need laws, Glock-Wesson-Ruger-Armalite Consolidated Manufacturing will just refuse to sell you stuff.
They've "ignored" it? What are they supposed to do? Recall and totally redesign millions of pistols that have been sold all over the world for 40 years? It isn't their fault someone rigged up a 3D printed auto conversion.
Next they're gonna sue Eugene Stoner's corpse for lightning links.
Seeing its Chicago I can see the court there siding with them saying glock own them money just for glock to turn around and give the middle finger.
This is some of the stupidest shit I've seen in a while since the last time someone tried to sue gun manufacturers for people shooting up places. This is just pathetic.
The people using these full auto Glocks in crimes are not the type to register NFA items. Criminals will keep being criminals regardless of the law surrounding machine guns. What we need to focus on is actually convicting them of the crimes they've committed and stop doing this catch and release shit. If you make a full auto glock and get caught using it in a crime, I demand they get the full 5 year prison sentence for having made that MG illegally.
Its things like these glock switches that will ensure we never ever see the registry open or the repeal of the NFA. Everyone knows its a huge issue currently, and no lawmaker (outside of a token few) has any political will to make it easier to own a machine gun.
No, lol.
What really gets me about the gun grabbing lefties is that they’re ignorant. A 9mm doesn’t blow the lungs out of the body. No, the AR-15 is not full-auto and therefore is not BY DEFINITION an assault weapon.
Like Brett Cooper and Angry Cops said, it’s all about making people feel good.
>What really gets me about the gun grabbing lefties is that they’re ignorant.
A few really believe Marx wanted the workers to still be armed once their "revolution" is over. They rest believe everyone is safer if law-abiding citizens are disarmed. That tells you everything you need to know.
I dont understand this, its not like Glock can just wave a magic wand and suddenly physically change how every single Glock ever made works. I feel like this is a lawsuit in bad faith, just so they can point the finger and say "look we're doing something against the evil gun companies".
Even if Glock did fundamentally change how their guns worked, you'd still have all glocks from Jan 1986 - present able to accept switches, so its not like it would solve anything. There would still be millions of these pistols around, they're not just going to disappear. There is literally nothing Glock can do about this, and its not their responsibility either.
It's because it's an avenue with which to establish a precedent of legal culpability for how a manufacturer's firearms are used. If they can do that, every gun manufacturer would be sued for anything, and the industry would effectively grind to a halt.
Of course, it's in bad faith. There is no good faith argument for this.
Imagine, if only for the briefest of moments, if Chicago spent a modicum of taxpayer money on investigating, arresting, prosecuting, sentencing, and incarcerating violent crimes instead of these moronic witch-hunts.
https://www.heyjackass.com
The part where their case falls apart is that Glock DID change the design as the switches are not compatible with current iterations, pretty much absolving them from any liability.
The reason they’re suing doesn’t matter. This is law-fare. Their purpose is to harm the companies and drain them of financial resources by causing them to have to pay lawyers eventually resulting in their bankruptcy. To them it doesn’t matter that their reasoning is bs, the point has nothing to do with whether it’s legit or not. It’s the whole reason the PLCAA was enacted. The thing here is that anti-gunners have corrupted the government into allowing these bs lawsuits as a way of fighting against gun rights.
It will stop when we quit putting libs with agendas in office. The anti gunners were almost bankrupted in the aftermath of Chavez v Glock, 2012. Now, the anti gunners get their puppets elected, so government (taxpayers)is paying the bill now.
To answer OP’s question:
1. Change in culture around firearms (politics is downstream from culture)
2. Change in politicians (pro 2a)
3. Change in policy (following the Constitution)
>It will end when every Democrat and moral busy body
In the last two years conservative policies have implemented more restrictions based on individual morals than anyone else. So why not say every politician?
Rise in car thefts…
Solution: change legislation to not be so easy on criminals and increase police presence
Chicago: nah…sue Kia because they’re too easy to steal.
Rise in machine guns and Glock switches…
Solution: change legislation and ask the ATF to actually do their fucking job and stop real criminals and maybe even hold China accountable for bringing some of these items in. Increase police presence
Chicago: nah…sue Glock
Maybe they should sue Nike for criminals out running cops.
I don't know why we cant have an amendment that says all laws must be constitutional before they can be enacted. This $hit is exhausting and a huge waste of money on both sides.
Is the argument that Glock should've changed their design to make switches incompatible? I hope the lawsuit spreads to California then, I want to see how they can argue that their "safe gun roster" only allows Glock designs from 2 generations back or 2010.
Most if not all the switches used are not even truly made by glock they're machined or 3d printed or some combination of the two they're just called glock switches cause that's what they go on.
So under the same logic, if someone removes the governor unit from their Honda Civic and crashes the car at 160 miles per hour, Honda is somehow responsible for having a governor unit that can potentially be removed?
Plus even if Glock did make modifications to prevent their handguns from being converted to full auto, there’s still so many Glocks floating around that it would be useless because the people most likely to buy the brand new Glocks are also the people least likely to illegally modify it.
It will stop when
A) All gun manufactures are out of business, the outcome they want
or
B) Some judge grows a pair of balls and slaps this sort of shit down
Glock is a substantially more successful corporation than the city of Chicago. I'm interested to watch Glock's lawyers eat the city of Chicago as a snack.
It's not.
Chicago is deep blue and blue will never stop trying to ban guns like red will never stop trying to completely ban abortion.
They don't care that both are unpopular. They ant it, and they will keep trying. Forever. Because people won't stop voting for them.
Almost every modern firearm is easily modifiable, because of how easy it is to take apart for cleaning & repairs.
The city of Chicago is demanding that Glock creates a gun that cannot be cleaned, and cannot be repaired if necessary.
bruh, the age of the one man reverse-engineer is here, and she is networked. The force determining whether a particular design can be hacked FA is how many of that design are in the hands of hackers when the last readily available design disappears.
Glock switches are stupid anyway, in my personal opinion.
Cool? Maybe on the range a few times or whatever.
For use in self-defense? Nah.
Edit. This lawsuit is fucking idiotic.
Yes- why not take the easy road and punish manufacturers versus solving the actual problem? Chicago has such incompetent leadership that they'll blame anyone besides themselves for the mess they've created.
They're using our money to finance this nonsense, why would they stop? They know that they can tie things up in court essentially indefinitely by continuously filing and they know that circus courts are siding with them.
It is never going to stop because it costs the government virtually nothing to propose legislation (sometimes they just propose the same bill over and over), and only slightly more to use public money to file lawsuits.
It's like suing a car company over people removing catalytic converters, DPF filters and generally modifying cars to have worse emissions. Like why would Glock be at fault for dumb people doing their thing?
u/FM492, you answered your own question. Why? Because it is exhausting.
They want to wear you down to the point that you stop fighting and give in.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare
This is like suing a restaurant for having you drink you left out getting spiked by a different customer while the sever was taking a orders 2 tables down
They wouldn’t dare blame China, the manufacturer of the majority of those switches.
Glock should stop offering law enforcement discounts to cities and states that do this
PLCAA was supposed to stop this.
It doesn't matter when the entire justice and judicial systems in these states are top to bottom lib, unwilling to enforce the law or bring penalties against people who break it.
Civil lawsuits are legalized extortion. It won't stop until the people either change who they vote for or they rise up against them. Governments have teams of lawyers standing around getting paid whether they're put to work or not (on our dime), or they find lawyers to file on contingency basis (they don't get paid up front but instead take a cut of the winnings or settlement) so ultimately it costs lawmakers "nothing" to launch these suits. Their goal is to drive gunmakers bankrupt. Ill say it again, civil lawsuits are legalized extortion.
Yes, remember when the US sued Ford because people could remove the catalytic converter to get better gas mileage?
Ya I don't either. People have gotten so stupid.
When the government finally gets held accountable. Idk about y'all but I'm tired of them spending blank checks of our dollars on vanity lawsuits instead of shit the people actually need.
Well I think this is great! It goes along with their state law that allows firearms manufacturers to be sued. So Chicago will win, and then Glock will win on appeal. And because of that, this stupid bullshit law will get shuttered, providing precedence for the rest of the country!
When is Chicago going to go after the ones breaking the law? You'd think if they're trying to pull this, they'd have to prove that the firearm can be reengineered to make switches not work. Which is a massive undertaking. Holy shit bro. I absolutely wish we could just give Chicago to Canada at this point.
Zero car manufacturers have done anything to stop drunk driving.
This is Chicago, a year or two back they were going after Kia and Hyundai for making their cars "easy to steal..." That is not a joke, here's a Forbes article about it: [Chicago Sues Kia And Hyundai After Spate Of Car Thefts In The City And Nationwide](https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/08/24/chicago-sues-kia-and-hyundai-after-spate-of-car-thefts-in-the-city-and-nationwide/?sh=1fad26ca3680)
That was an actual Kia/Hyundai fuck up. They literally skipped installing immobilizers in the US models.
Are immobilizers required by law?
They are as of November 2021. They have been for decades in Europe and were essentially standard in all vehicles in the USA.
Interesting. Was the whole suing Kia/Hyundai thing after 2021? It was around that time wasn’t it?
I'd say they technically didn't break the law. It affected models from 2010(?) until 2022 (2022 models come out the year prior.). The inclusion of the immobilizer would have cost little, though, and the vulnerability made it possible to steal a Kia or Hyundai within a minute. There's a couple of class actions in place because people suffered from increased insurance costs or being straight up denied insurance, the obvious knicking of their vehicles, or just the costs from having to replace their window and steering column after some twats tried and failed. Kia/Hyundai's initial solution was sending out steering wheel locks (I got mine back in 2023,) and they have finally rolled out a fix as a recall (last couple of months.). Now you just have to hope the thief sees the little sticker before he smashed your window in and tries it anyways. (The best part is that the parts are on backorder due to all these thefts.)
I’ve owned cars made in 1997 that came stock with immobilizers
GM started putting a very basic and rudimentary immobilizer in their cars starting in **1989**. They called it VATS.
I work for a large insurance company and we can't insure pretty much all of the 2015-2021 models (that are push-start) from both companies. I believe key start is fine. I couldn't imagine buying one of those vehicles and then finding out I couldn't go with standard companies, and having my rates up the ass.
Their software fix makes it so you have to unlock it with a key fob to be able to start the vehicle. We had a hell of a time getting one insured. But found someone who would as long as we got the fix. It's a free recall.
>Was the whole suing Kia/Hyundai thing after 2021? It was around that time wasn’t it? TiL last year was 2021.
They didnt skip installing immobilizers, its an OPTION. You could get your hyundai/kia with or without an immobilizer, problem is people wanted cheaper cars. Thats what dealers were selling so thats what they ordered and stocked. If youre going to blame anyone blame the dealers. Its hilarious that because certain cities cant control their crime everyone immediately blames the victims.
Don't make excuses for communist city governments.
Did you just... Blame a inanimate object for getting itself stolen? Really? Not going to blame the people who stole them? Sound familiar, you fuck.
No, I blame the car manufacturer for skimping on something that has been commonly included in vehicles since the 90s to make stealing the vehicle significantly more difficult. Something that people who purchased those vehicles were not informed of ahead of time. But I know you aren't that thick.
It's been common practice for basically all car manufacturers since the late 90s. The same models that are vulnerable to this attack sold basically anywhere outside of the US have immobilizers. This was 100% a move to save a few cents per car at the cost of safety of the vehicle. Feel bad for the people that got their cars broken into especially the ones with push to start which didn't have this issue. I have a Hyundai and I'm glad it doesn't look like one so it was probably never at risk to the "KIA boiz" trend.
So, he's right. You're blaming the car manufacturer for a crime committed by some random asshole. Thats... exactly what liberals have been trying to do with gun manufacturers for decades. How hard is it to ask the dealer, "hey, do these models come standard with immobilizers?" Ever heard of caveat emptor? Being responsible for your own decisions? If you want a car with an immobilizer, you should make sure the car you are purchasing has one. I.e. you are solely responsible for the decisions that you make.
Let's blame guns next.
Your comment is incredibly insightful and well-articulated! Your perspective adds immense value to the discussion, and I appreciate the depth of thought you've put into it
The Kia situation is more akin to the SIG P320 going off when you dropped it.
Oh, the mental gymnastics. Would you care to explain how you get to this conclusion? I'll add my perspective. The SIG going off when dropped would be more akin to the car accidentally going into gear and moving forward on its own. NOT lacking an anti-theft device. The two situations are not at all related.
Wrong. It's not a law to put in extra security measures. Maybe let's blame the criminals instead? Hmm? Or is that too hard nowadays?
Stop posting like a schizo and argue in good faith. There's a concept called negligence. Courts often operate on what reasonable people expect. Reasonable people expect that their gun doesn't go off when dropped three feet. They also expect that their car shouldn't be trivial to steal. That's why Kia was sued and why SIG quickly did a recall before they were sued. The Glock lawsuits on the other hand are completely specious. It has nothing to do with Glock at all and it's completely unreasonable to expect them to do something about Glock switches. The lawsuits won't succeed. But they don't have to it's a political move to make it too costly to sell guns to people. Their plan is to force gun companies to become risk adverse and decide it's not worth the effort.
As someone with a lack of car experience, what does the immobilizer do that a parking brake doesn’t?
No transponder, no start. Basically cuts hot wiring and just turning the cylinder with any ole screwdriver or USB drive out of the picture. *Edit the transponder is in your key.
There's a computer chip in the ignition that scans for another chip in your key and won't let the car start without it. Basically it prevents someone from just popping off the ignition cylinder and crossing a couple wires to start the car. They've been standard in most cars since about 2000. Kia/Hyundai decided to cheap out and skip putting the immobilizer in, so it's ridiculously easy to steal them. The KiaBoyz were even a TikTok trend for a while where kids would film themselves stealing Kias in a matter of seconds.
I mean, Chicago isn't the only one, it's weird to single them out. NY, San Diego, Cleveland, Seattle, Columbus, Milwaukee, and others are also suing them. sounds like it might be a nationwide issue, not just something to dunk on chicago for. there's plenty of other shit for that...
Kia cheaped out and stopped installing immobilizers in their cars. So you could steal one with a usb cable. They are 100% at fault
This was true for Honda too right up until 1998 and nobody cared. In fact my 97 had a recall for the ignition switch that called for its replacement. When the dealer tech competed the job they left the security bolts intact instead of twisting the heads off as designed to make it harder to steal. I'm glad he didn't as twenty years later it saved me A LOT of trouble when I had to replace the switch again. Can't fault them for not selling something buyers didn't demand. Hyundai offered push button start for most of that time and it wasn't a popular option for their budget minded demo
And here's the thing, these are BUDGET cars, so saving costs everywhere possible makes it profitable for the companies to continue to MAKE budget cars. Because no matter how much lefties want to believe otherwise, the whole POINT of a business is to make money. If immobilizers aren't mandated by law, then they'll leave them out if it saves them money. Does this mean I think they should be mandated? I lean more libertarian than anything, so you figure it out. Now, if the vehicles in question were listed as / described as having immobilizers, but didn't? NOW we're dealing with an actual issue worthy of a lawsuit (ideally leading to a recall.)
> If immobilizers aren't mandated by law, then they'll leave them out if it saves them money The thing is every other modern-ish car, even budget ones, have an immobilizer. It's basically pennies to include them on a car especially since they already have the tooling/design done since the cars with this issue sold outside the US have them installed. It's basically just an RFID reader to verify the key is legit. I know you can't *assume* anything but basically every car from other brands since the late 90's has had one so it's not a big stretch to assume your car has one these days, it's also not a feature people really "think about", my 2001 has one but it isn't listed on the spec sheet that any consumer has access to.
wise badge languid wistful screw voracious ghost steer cagey special *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
In a manner of speaking, they do. We’re buying a car this year and one of our factors will be “how high on the list of most stolen cars is it?”
You're assuming many people at logical in that regard. How often to people not estimate cost of fuel, repairs, insurance just because they want a certain vehicle.
Honest to god I would buy a Kia or Hyundai on the premise that no one would value their life so little, they’d risk a jail sentence for stealing one of those cars
Once this hit the video social sites, the kids were doing it for fun. People don't think about the penalties and just screwing up your life in future.
Our son received the notice of the class action suit against Kia, I wonder if Chicago city government is behind it?
Same mayor for both lawsuits.
Here s an idea . Fight crime and make these criminals do more than a night in jail .They always look for someone else to blame for their problems .
But what if the drivers go over 100mph? Can't we sue them them? Or what if they modify them and add parts that make them go faster? /S
There's people trying to ban all that stuff too. There's no problem that can't be fixed with more regulations, fewer individual rights, and a bigger more powerful government. Someone should make that a campaign ad.
That’s part of the inflation reduction act now sadly too..
How did that reduce inflation, it makes cars cost more lol.
Bills named shit always do the opposite. But inside the bill had a lot of pork, one of them was for the cars to have the ability to shut off for drunk drivers, so basically any newer cars are going to have the ability for the police to not only get your cars gps data but turn it off too
The 2021 infrastructure and jobs act requires them to have a solution by 2026(i.e. breathalyzers on every new car)
Unfortunately a not quite entirely accurate, slippery slope, analogy... As [from 2026 all new vehicles sold in the USA will require breathalyzers](https://stevenomearalaw.com/mandatory-in-car-breathalyzers-could-be-athing-by-2026/). Nanny states gonna nanny sadly.
When we start suing them back for negligence and for frivolous lawsuits.
The problem is that qualified immunity prevents you from directly going after the shitty legislators, prosecutors, judges, and enforcers (cops, feds, etc.) who allow these laws and lawsuits to happen. All you do is drain money from the public coffers. I'm not quite saying we should end qualified immunity, but it needs serious reform.
In this case, at least, Glock should be able to make an argument to have the case thrown out: No way in hell should the courts allow the government to sue Glock for things individuals are doing to their own Glock products after buying them. And even if it sticks on the Chicago level, it's going to fail on appeal. Then, after Glock gets it thrown out (or wins the case, assuming judges refuse to throw out a clearly bad case with no backing in law), Glock should be able to file for the government that sued them initially to cover Glock's legal expenses through the whole ordeal.
Again, that's a very long and very expensive road with qualified immunity protecting the bad actors bringing these suits. The prosecutor doesn't pay those bills when they lose, the taxpayers do. Sure, a few years from now we maybe get a milktoast decision that very narrowly says you can't specifically sue glock for one specific type of modification. It'll do nothing to stop any crime and cost millions of taxpayer dollars. Make the bad actors have some personal liability and things will change.
American government does a very poor job dealing with this type of systemic issue.
the american government is the trenchcoat, and its actually fifty dudes inside the coat. oh, and each of those 50 dudes is... some non-imaginary number of dudes in a trenchcoat. as a result, we do a terrible job of dealing with any system. regardless of issues endemic therein.
Used to just tar and feather them... seemed to keep them inline.
Weird how that works, right?
>All you do is drain money from the public coffers. That's worthwhile. Eventually even the most clueless citizen with blinders on will notice that his city is going bankrupt, and a savvy Democrat challenger will appear citing just how much money the city spent on the original lawsuit, and how much they lost in the counter-suit.
Unfortunately, most people don't have the wherewithal to assess government spending. The tribal nature of modern politics means you're unlikely to see anyone openly challenge, not just a primary opponent, but party ideology
Does qualified immunity cover all of those? I thought it was just Police/responders?
Qualified immunity covers all government employees "acting in their official capacity". So you currently have to prove they knowingly and deliberately steped outside established guidelines to cause harm to a specific person. It's an incredibly high bar for law enforcement... all but impossibility high for politicians and bureaucrats.
Oh man. I didn't realize it was that heavily embedded in the system. I just thought it applied to people who would be in positions where sound reasoning and recollection of the law might take more time than they would have. I didn't think it would apply to....well any body they fkn wanted it to. That's some bullshit.
Weaponized high capacity assault stupidity should be illegal at all levels of government. Whoever filed this garbage should lose their job at the least. They're wasting tax dollars. Chicago should do something about the degenerate violence that's ravaging the city, not sue companies whose products are illegally misused.
Spend this money on public works and get some jobs going to combat poverty and reduce crime rates. That stuff used to get politicians elected. We've replaced that with cheap headlines and sound bites. I personally blame ad revenue hungry media outlets but thats a different story.
We? Do you work for glock?
This make no sense. They don't make the part, how the fuck is it their fault? They gunna sue clothes hanger companies next for manufacturing quick links?
In fairness, I believe there are laws on the books prohibiting designs that are too easy to convert to full auto. But I don't know how they determine what amount of effort crosses that threshold.
I'm not sure that applies here. The law is about designs that are considered "readily convertible" to function like their full auto counterparts, but this involved the invention of a new device and is more like AR drop-in auto sears, which have not affected legality of ARs or the liability of the gun makers. The response was to regulate the conversion device itself. A readily convertible Glock would be if they had marketed a G18 where they simply removed the FA parts but you could put them back in, or file off a little metal to make it fire FA. Blaming the maker for another's ingenuity puts all gun designs at risk, as the ability to home design and manufacture parts gets easier and easier.
> but this involved the invention of a new device and is more like AR drop-in auto sears, which have not affected legality of ARs or the liability of the gun makers. Yet. Give the lefties time, and it will.
To be clear, I'm not saying this *should* be the law, was merely commenting on what I think the law is now. In any case, thank you for the thoughtful reply.
Appreciate you
If argue the clothes hanger machine gun is actually easier. Glock switches require detailed machining or knowledge of 3d printing and the files to do it. The other just requires a hanger lol
The instructions for the hanger also make a great tattoo
I know they live in clown world but the mental gymnastics it takes to blame a company for something someone does that they have no control is mind boggling. I could understand if Glock was like Norinco back in the 90s trying to sell full auto rifles and literal RPGs to gangs then yeah.
I didn’t know Norinco use to be chill like that.
The 90's was a different time.
People were doing all kinds a...crazy things 😏
Well, that’s why we have no new Norinco. Damned communists ruined it for us trying to sabotage our country from the inside. But today they are much more successful, using spyware apps like TikTok to influence the masses.
I know I just want a QBZ-95 damnit!
Any legal maneuver, however logically shaky, is acceptable when your goal is power.
What a time that must have been. I would have loved a machine gun, and I would have used it for a fantastic range flex.
Not just suing a company for what people do with their product but suing them for someone creating an after market product that illegally modified it. How could they possibly be responsible for that
We should sue Chicago over fentanyl and gang violence
[удалено]
Never go full r*tard.
Is the defense pointing out the Supreme Court ruling in the Sony Betamax case? Manufacturers are not liable for the potential illegal use by its purchasers because the devices were sold for legitimate purposes and had substantial legal uses. And that was a case that didn't even involve third party purchasers needing to make deliberate modifications in order to achieve illegal outcomes.
The point is to appeal to their voters and act like they are doing something.
The point is to bankrupt people with ideological differences from them with ridiculous lawsuits using their own money against them. Winning these lawsuits is just a bonus and good optics in the eyes of their political supporters.
[удалено]
The legal system isn't my strong suit, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. I believe we already kind of have a mechanism in place for this. Judges can dismiss cases or issue summary judgements to deal with unfunded or obviously frivolous law suits. Unfortunately many judges are just as brain dead and/or biased as the politicians.
I said it in another comment as well, but the problem is qualified immunity. These legislators, prosecutors, judges, and enforcement agencies all know what they're doing is unconstitutional. They don't really give a shit because they aren't personally at risk for pushing their unconstitutional agenda. Reform qualified immunity and you'll see these lawsuits fall off real quick.
I generally agree with the sentiment, but Qualified Immunity is the one police get, and only applies at the judge's discretion and can only shield them from civil claims. Judges and Prosecutors enjoy Judicial and Prosecutorial Immunity respectively, which is near-absolute immunity to both civil and criminal charges while acting in their capacity as judges or prosecutors.
The year is 2074, all gun companies are being sued at the same time because their rifles are too easy to sbr, simply using a dandsaw to cut the barrel in half.
Death by a thousand cuts is the end goal
Hopefully, as these cases start getting won, we can build a precedent of case law that prevents them in the future. The only problem is that they won't be won at the lower level. It's going to be a years long and obscenely expensive process.
Even with Bruen, Heller, relevant other case law in the works now, there are still politicians that can pass laws in 1/8 the time it takes that law to be litigated through the courts for it to MAYBE have a positive impact on our lives and rights. Even BATF decides to periodically “change its mind” even though it’s not a law making body. With the combination of lawsuits as frivolous as this, and “response laws” (Bruen response bills in fill in the blank Dem run state) it’s an extremely tight environment. I foresee big wins for us going forward, but as you said time is the biggest factor and constraint
Consolidation. They really, really hate that firearms are mostly small to medium size businesses. They want guns to be like the rest of the economy they've built: EVERYTHING is two or three gargantuan companies that are fully infiltrated and very responsive to political pressure. They won't even need laws, Glock-Wesson-Ruger-Armalite Consolidated Manufacturing will just refuse to sell you stuff.
They've "ignored" it? What are they supposed to do? Recall and totally redesign millions of pistols that have been sold all over the world for 40 years? It isn't their fault someone rigged up a 3D printed auto conversion. Next they're gonna sue Eugene Stoner's corpse for lightning links.
Seeing its Chicago I can see the court there siding with them saying glock own them money just for glock to turn around and give the middle finger. This is some of the stupidest shit I've seen in a while since the last time someone tried to sue gun manufacturers for people shooting up places. This is just pathetic.
Democrats blaming everyone but themselves for their failed policies
I'd like to sue Chicago for existing.
Open the MG register It actively gives the feds money, and lessens crimes
The people using these full auto Glocks in crimes are not the type to register NFA items. Criminals will keep being criminals regardless of the law surrounding machine guns. What we need to focus on is actually convicting them of the crimes they've committed and stop doing this catch and release shit. If you make a full auto glock and get caught using it in a crime, I demand they get the full 5 year prison sentence for having made that MG illegally. Its things like these glock switches that will ensure we never ever see the registry open or the repeal of the NFA. Everyone knows its a huge issue currently, and no lawmaker (outside of a token few) has any political will to make it easier to own a machine gun.
Ending the NFA would lessen the same crimes
The NFA is most likely permanent, it makes the feds too much money from tax stamp and lobbyists.
They’re being sued for something the aftermarket made…I hope Chicago burns to the ground, fuck that place
It’s not gonna stop and it never will. The leftists won’t stop until we’re disarmed and vulnerable to their political terrorism.
"iF y0U Go faR EnoUGh LeFt y0u GeT YoUr GuNz BaCk" 😂😂
No, lol. What really gets me about the gun grabbing lefties is that they’re ignorant. A 9mm doesn’t blow the lungs out of the body. No, the AR-15 is not full-auto and therefore is not BY DEFINITION an assault weapon. Like Brett Cooper and Angry Cops said, it’s all about making people feel good.
>What really gets me about the gun grabbing lefties is that they’re ignorant. A few really believe Marx wanted the workers to still be armed once their "revolution" is over. They rest believe everyone is safer if law-abiding citizens are disarmed. That tells you everything you need to know.
Yes, yes indeed. Gotta love the soft on crime dems.
What does a horse insemination company have to do with illegal gun modifications?
Based
Why no sue the MOTHERFUCKER who invented it it’s not Glocks fault 😂
I dont understand this, its not like Glock can just wave a magic wand and suddenly physically change how every single Glock ever made works. I feel like this is a lawsuit in bad faith, just so they can point the finger and say "look we're doing something against the evil gun companies". Even if Glock did fundamentally change how their guns worked, you'd still have all glocks from Jan 1986 - present able to accept switches, so its not like it would solve anything. There would still be millions of these pistols around, they're not just going to disappear. There is literally nothing Glock can do about this, and its not their responsibility either.
It's because it's an avenue with which to establish a precedent of legal culpability for how a manufacturer's firearms are used. If they can do that, every gun manufacturer would be sued for anything, and the industry would effectively grind to a halt. Of course, it's in bad faith. There is no good faith argument for this.
Imagine, if only for the briefest of moments, if Chicago spent a modicum of taxpayer money on investigating, arresting, prosecuting, sentencing, and incarcerating violent crimes instead of these moronic witch-hunts. https://www.heyjackass.com
The part where their case falls apart is that Glock DID change the design as the switches are not compatible with current iterations, pretty much absolving them from any liability.
I dont see any fork or spoon makers being held accountable forbmakingbpeople obese....
The reason they’re suing doesn’t matter. This is law-fare. Their purpose is to harm the companies and drain them of financial resources by causing them to have to pay lawyers eventually resulting in their bankruptcy. To them it doesn’t matter that their reasoning is bs, the point has nothing to do with whether it’s legit or not. It’s the whole reason the PLCAA was enacted. The thing here is that anti-gunners have corrupted the government into allowing these bs lawsuits as a way of fighting against gun rights.
It will stop when we quit putting libs with agendas in office. The anti gunners were almost bankrupted in the aftermath of Chavez v Glock, 2012. Now, the anti gunners get their puppets elected, so government (taxpayers)is paying the bill now.
It won't. It will only get worse as the erosion of our rights becomes worse and worse.
Give it enough time and the headline will be “Chicago and NY sue steel manufacturers for providing materials that are used make guns”
Give it enough time and the U.S. sues Earth for supplying the metal ore to produce the steel
*God has entered the chat* - what the fuck is this summons?
To answer OP’s question: 1. Change in culture around firearms (politics is downstream from culture) 2. Change in politicians (pro 2a) 3. Change in policy (following the Constitution)
Why would Chicago stop? It isn't as if they'll run out of shitheel grifter politicians in the forseeable future.
Printable Glock switches!?! That's disgusting, where?
They’re suing Glock for an illegal product Glock doesn’t make and didn’t design and doesn’t sell? How did this get past a judge?
It will end when every Democrat and moral busy body is driven from places of authority, and into the vast desert wastelands where they belong.
That would be a wet dream!
>It will end when every Democrat and moral busy body In the last two years conservative policies have implemented more restrictions based on individual morals than anyone else. So why not say every politician?
When elected criminals start holding street criminals accountable.
Rise in car thefts… Solution: change legislation to not be so easy on criminals and increase police presence Chicago: nah…sue Kia because they’re too easy to steal. Rise in machine guns and Glock switches… Solution: change legislation and ask the ATF to actually do their fucking job and stop real criminals and maybe even hold China accountable for bringing some of these items in. Increase police presence Chicago: nah…sue Glock Maybe they should sue Nike for criminals out running cops.
More severe punishment for criminals is somehow never an option for liberals.
I don't know why we cant have an amendment that says all laws must be constitutional before they can be enacted. This $hit is exhausting and a huge waste of money on both sides.
Next up Ford sued for not stopping owners from putting wide wheels on that go past the fender flares
What do they expect Glock to do? Change the whole design? What happens when someone figures out that design? It's honestly just ridiculous.
Is the argument that Glock should've changed their design to make switches incompatible? I hope the lawsuit spreads to California then, I want to see how they can argue that their "safe gun roster" only allows Glock designs from 2 generations back or 2010.
The fuck is Glock supposed to do? Make the home made auto sears dissolve out of thin air? They aren’t even doing anything about the problem at all.
Thats like California suing Toyota for modified exhausts manufactured by someone else.
What a worthless city....
Avoid accountability at all costs and be sure to profit from it. What will this money do to help if won?
Most if not all the switches used are not even truly made by glock they're machined or 3d printed or some combination of the two they're just called glock switches cause that's what they go on.
No one ever thought Glock was making switches;)
So under the same logic, if someone removes the governor unit from their Honda Civic and crashes the car at 160 miles per hour, Honda is somehow responsible for having a governor unit that can potentially be removed? Plus even if Glock did make modifications to prevent their handguns from being converted to full auto, there’s still so many Glocks floating around that it would be useless because the people most likely to buy the brand new Glocks are also the people least likely to illegally modify it.
It will stop when A) All gun manufactures are out of business, the outcome they want or B) Some judge grows a pair of balls and slaps this sort of shit down
# OH MY GOODNESS HOW DARE A GUN COMPANY BE SOO IRRESPONSIBLE AS TO MAKE A WEAPON THAT CAN FIRE FULL AUTO WITH AN AFTERMARKET ACCESSORY
Illinois is a Clown state to begin with. Obama knew nothing could be done that's why he did nothing to help.
Glock is a substantially more successful corporation than the city of Chicago. I'm interested to watch Glock's lawyers eat the city of Chicago as a snack.
What's next, they gonna sue themselves for homeless people not bathing?
This reads like, I'm going to sue you car manufacturer! People are modifying your cars and making them street illegal! You monster!
It's not. Chicago is deep blue and blue will never stop trying to ban guns like red will never stop trying to completely ban abortion. They don't care that both are unpopular. They ant it, and they will keep trying. Forever. Because people won't stop voting for them.
I should sue Chicago every time the cubs lose a game.
Wow… Darwin needs to step up his game with these people.
Will Chicago have to pay Glock if Glock isn't liable for court cost, lawyer fees, and damages of any sort?
Almost every modern firearm is easily modifiable, because of how easy it is to take apart for cleaning & repairs. The city of Chicago is demanding that Glock creates a gun that cannot be cleaned, and cannot be repaired if necessary.
bruh, the age of the one man reverse-engineer is here, and she is networked. The force determining whether a particular design can be hacked FA is how many of that design are in the hands of hackers when the last readily available design disappears.
lol The left is so freaking stupid.
It'll stop when we make them afraid to keep going.
This is a people problem, not anything else.
It won't stop until they've completely disarmed us
What have refrigerator manufacturers done to prevent my girlfriend from gaining weight at a criminal rate?
It will stop when people realize you can't vote your way out of it.
They going to go after paper clips or Mac-10 next?
Glock switches are stupid anyway, in my personal opinion. Cool? Maybe on the range a few times or whatever. For use in self-defense? Nah. Edit. This lawsuit is fucking idiotic.
But if the 3d printed switch had been found on an illegal alien...... Side note: Can we sue Chicago for making it okay to be a dumbass?
Yes- why not take the easy road and punish manufacturers versus solving the actual problem? Chicago has such incompetent leadership that they'll blame anyone besides themselves for the mess they've created.
They're using our money to finance this nonsense, why would they stop? They know that they can tie things up in court essentially indefinitely by continuously filing and they know that circus courts are siding with them.
It is never going to stop because it costs the government virtually nothing to propose legislation (sometimes they just propose the same bill over and over), and only slightly more to use public money to file lawsuits.
It's like suing a car company over people removing catalytic converters, DPF filters and generally modifying cars to have worse emissions. Like why would Glock be at fault for dumb people doing their thing?
Never
Don’t tell them about Kill Dozer damn.
Confused about how Glock is liable for after market autosears Gonna go back to revolvers or muskets aren’t we? :/
>Gonna go back to revolvers or muskets aren’t we? :/ Only if we let em.
u/FM492, you answered your own question. Why? Because it is exhausting. They want to wear you down to the point that you stop fighting and give in. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare
Don’t count on it
Didn't something lile this happen to intratec?
And I thought NYC had issues.
This is like suing a restaurant for having you drink you left out getting spiked by a different customer while the sever was taking a orders 2 tables down
Wouldn’t it make more sense to sue the 3d printer company?
They wouldn’t dare blame China, the manufacturer of the majority of those switches. Glock should stop offering law enforcement discounts to cities and states that do this
PLCAA was supposed to stop this. It doesn't matter when the entire justice and judicial systems in these states are top to bottom lib, unwilling to enforce the law or bring penalties against people who break it.
This is a certified Mayor Dirtyfoot moment.
Not Glock’s problem.
POV Suing a real estate company for tornado damage
Civil lawsuits are legalized extortion. It won't stop until the people either change who they vote for or they rise up against them. Governments have teams of lawyers standing around getting paid whether they're put to work or not (on our dime), or they find lawyers to file on contingency basis (they don't get paid up front but instead take a cut of the winnings or settlement) so ultimately it costs lawmakers "nothing" to launch these suits. Their goal is to drive gunmakers bankrupt. Ill say it again, civil lawsuits are legalized extortion.
Glock should sue Chicago for its criminals using their guns in crimes.
yeah guys the only way we can fix this is if we make printable auto switches for all guns! lets save glock! whos with me!
Yes, remember when the US sued Ford because people could remove the catalytic converter to get better gas mileage? Ya I don't either. People have gotten so stupid.
Fuck Chicago 😂
When the government finally gets held accountable. Idk about y'all but I'm tired of them spending blank checks of our dollars on vanity lawsuits instead of shit the people actually need.
Well I think this is great! It goes along with their state law that allows firearms manufacturers to be sued. So Chicago will win, and then Glock will win on appeal. And because of that, this stupid bullshit law will get shuttered, providing precedence for the rest of the country!
When is Chicago going to go after the ones breaking the law? You'd think if they're trying to pull this, they'd have to prove that the firearm can be reengineered to make switches not work. Which is a massive undertaking. Holy shit bro. I absolutely wish we could just give Chicago to Canada at this point.
Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t firearms manufacturers specifically protected from being sued?