New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin made the purpose of the lawsuit against Glock abundantly clear last Thursday: “With this lawsuit, we will put the homemade machine gun industry out of business.”
He also developed a bogus lawsuit against Glock, claiming that criminals were not misusing the company's popular handguns.
For decades, Glock has intentionally sold weapons that anyone with a screwdriver and a YouTube video can convert into a military machine gun in minutes.
Glock is owned by Austria, lining their pockets with profits paid for by the American bloodshed caused by their products, and we're tired of it. Our message to Glock today is clear. Gone are the days of prioritizing greed over the safety of residents and law enforcement officers.
Anti-gun shooters active across the US
Since President Donald Trump's victory, opponents' attacks on private ownership of firearms in the United States have expanded to the state level. However, the agenda remains the same. Condemn guns, condemn the tools some people use to turn firearms into fully automatic weapons, and ignore the criminals who use those tools. The goal is not to protect public safety, as anti-shooting opponents self-righteously and falsely claim. It would bankrupt gun manufacturers and pave the way for eviscerating civilians' right to self-defense against tyrannical governments.
Mr. Platkin's charges were filed on the same day that Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, an Islamic extremist, filed a lawsuit against Mr. Glock. Ellison said:
I am suing Glock for knowingly manufacturing and selling a handgun that could easily be converted into a machine gun. Glock's actions and inactions violate Minnesota law and endanger children, the community, and law enforcement.
This has to stop.
Today's lawsuit against Glock is about protecting our children and protecting the parents who look after us. Attorney General Platkin and the New Jersey Attorney General's Office would like to thank Attorney General Platkin for being a great partner in this effort and providing strong leadership to keep our state's citizens safe.
Ellison said this with a straight face. So does Ravi Ramanathan, director of New Jersey's anti-Second Amendment Statewide Affirmative Firearms Enforcement Agency.
Glock knows its guns are being converted to machine guns and routinely used to commit violent crimes, but it's doing nothing meaningful to stop it.
As with other products in other industries, manufacturers of products that can easily be illegally and dangerously modified are legally required to change their design to protect public safety. . Sales of dangerous products will be stopped. The firearms industry should not be treated differently than other industries. That's what we want today.
However, this claim is false.
Frivolous but expensive litigation is the strategy. That may be true, but some people go bankrupt to protect themselves. And that's the strategy here. Remington Arms is already bankrupt, and anti-gun activists targeted (and continue to target) Glock, the firearms industry's largest manufacturer.
Glock has been manufacturing handguns since 1982. According to Platkin's lawsuit:
Glock intentionally designed it that way. … The ability to automatically and rapidly fire bullets with a single pull of the trigger… is inherent in the core design. … This design allows the user of the weapon to easily insert small external add-ons. The unique ability of a Glock handgun to fire as a machine gun by inserting the component into the rear of the gun and… (release) the Glock handgun.
Who is the real culprit?
The real criminals, of course, are the individual criminals who seek to wreak havoc. And that's why Congress passed the Lawful Commerce in Arms Protection Act (PLCAA) in 2005 to protect the U.S. firearms industry from wasting legal fees to protect itself from frivolous lawsuits. .
Unfortunately, Glock is all too familiar with that strategy and argument. When the city of Chicago sued Glock in March for allegedly violating the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, Glock argued that the law interferes with interstate commerce, is unconstitutional, vague, and violates the Second Amendment. The company responded by claiming that it violates the Articles and is prohibited. By PLCAA. This protects companies from liability for criminal activity resulting from the illegal use of their products.
It doesn't matter. Platkin and Ellison and their sycophants know this. But they also know that overall they have more resources than Glock, and over time the reduction from litigation costs will work in their favor.
That's why state legislators in other states (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont) oppose gun control and the Second Amendment. is threatening to file a similar lawsuit against Glock.
The real danger of anti-gun shooters succeeding in their quest was well understood by Ammoland's editor-in-chief. F. Leal writes:
This lawsuit mirrors a strategy previously (successfully) employed by the tobacco and opioid industries to hold manufacturers accountable for the downstream effects of their products. Gun rights advocates argue that this approach unfairly targets a legitimate industry while ignoring the root causes of gun violence.
While this approach may be “unfair,” it could accomplish economically what anti-gun opponents have been unable to accomplish legislatively.
Related articles:
Department of Justice shuts down 355 websites selling Glock Switches
Glock asks court to dismiss Chicago lawsuit
