state officials and state government can be sued under 42 USC 1983 (violation of a constitutional right under the color of state law)--the Rodney King cops were acquitted in state court-both convicted and found liable under what can be a criminal and/or civil suit
Do you essentially have them on camera cackling evilly about what they're doing, how its wrongful, how they know its wrongful, how they enjoy doing wrongful things, and then twirling their mustachio's menacingly? Because if not, you're not going to be able to prove ****. Further: IDK that 'malfeasance' is a statutory claim. You'll need to restrict yourself to a statue. Which one did you have in mind?
Asked and answered "counsel". WHICH STATUTE SPECIFICALLY DID YOU HAVE IN MIND TO INVOKE AND WHAT SORT OF EVIDENCE ARE YOU LOOKING AT
an attorney who files the suit while understanding the federal statute (PLCAA) , is going to be in Rule 11 territory. so is his client whether or not it's a municipal government because plaintiffs are subject to sanctions too. Of course it will take some balls by a federal court to sanction the attorneys and the city for filing what is an attempt to ban guns unconstitutionally with bogus lawsuits
"Through this lawsuit, Chicago seeks an order enjoining Glock from continuing to sell its easily modifiable pistols to Chicago civilians via its website and Illinois gun stores that serve the Chicago market. The City also seeks an assessment of fines against Glock for each day that it continues to violate MCC § 2-25-090(a), as well as damages for the harm that Glock has knowingly and foreseeably caused to the City." "For the avoidance of doubt, Chicago does not seek any relief based on or to stop the sales of Glock pistols to law enforcement as they are currently designed. Unlike typical civilians, law enforcement officers may legally possess fully automatic weapons when they are on duty. This lawsuit is focused exclusively on Glock’s sales to the civilian market in Illinois." https://everytownlaw.org/documents/2024/03/3052.pdf/ I wonder how much Glock can afford to pay. Wasn't Remington bankrupted by the Sandy Hook lawsuit?
they should go after the ATF then. the fact that a hard core gun banner is parroting this bogus lawsuit proves my point-it's a desire by anti gun dems to try to ban guns
@Galileo let me ask you this and see if you will answer with something other than cutting and pasting the propaganda from the lawsuit 1) a company designs a firearm that is approved for sale in the USA by the ATF 2) other actors-those who have nothing to do with the gun maker, engineer a device that makes the gun fully automatic 3) the original gun maker has nothing to do with that 4) Does that mean that every gun maker has a duty to re design their products anytime a third party finds a way to make it into a machine gun?
oh btw almost every semi auto firearm and many bolt action ones, can be modified into a machine gun by a good gunsmith
Glock is guilty of negligence. In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid forseeable harm to others. Glock knew for years that their products could be easily converted to machine guns and did nothing. They knew for years that modified full auto Glocks were regularly being used in crimes and did nothing. They have violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by knowingly contributing to a condition which endangers public safety.
that's bullshit because you are claiming Glock's actions-which were never considered negligence 5-6 years ago change PURELY DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS. They have engaged in NO AFFIRMATIVE actions. here watch this people such as you will claim any gun maker is negligent if a third party can modify their weapons for full auto. BTW tell us why an illegally modified Glock is more dangerous
Jesus H tap dancing Christ no they ****ing are not. You're literally saying Toyota can be sued because the Hilux is the vehicle most converted into a technical worldwide.
anytime someone who is on record as being a gun banner-suggests anything that is against gun ownership, gun owners or gun makers, you have to assume their advocacy is based on the belief that such action will get them closer to their desired goal of BANNING FIREARMS
