13. 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.3

REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the City requests that the Court grant judgment in its favor, as follows:
i. Enjoining Glock from marketing and selling pistols that can easily be converted to
fully automatic to Chicago non-law-enforcement consumers via its website and Illinois gun stores
that serve the Chicago market;

BKinzey wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2024 2:02 pm Are they going to sue auto manufacturers because you can modify the engines to be non EPA compliant? You can also put non DOT tires on them.

senorgrand wrote: A piece of bar stock can be made into a sword. Sue US Steel!

featureless wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2024 2:39 pm Such bullshit. Yeah, you can do it but it's a felony. This shit is already on the books.

highdesert wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2024 4:13 pm Not surprised that Everytown is part of this lawsuit. There are so many aftermarket Glock products, I'm not surprised one or more slipped through using the Glock logo and at least one is an auto sear. Chicago has a big drug and crime problem which they call a gun violence problem.

senorgrand wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2024 5:14 pm I think one or more of the notorious bank robbers of the great depression had select fire 1911s.

senorgrand wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2024 6:51 pm Just wanted to point out criminals will adapt anything to their needs. JMB changed an 1892 into a machine gun, so...

senorgrand wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2024 5:14 pm I think one or more of the notorious bank robbers of the great depression had select fire 1911s.

As expected, on June 10 Glock filed a motion to dismiss.

Unexpected, however, is that Glock filed a notice to AG Raoul that it intends to file a challenge to have portions of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505) declared unconstitutional, "because it interferes with interstate commerce, is unconstitutionally vague, and violates the Second Amendment."

Chicago: Let's file a frivolous lawsuit to bankrupt Glock.
Glock: Challenge accepted.
Raoul: WUT?

CowboyT wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2024 12:04 pm Then the judge should indeed dismiss it...but with prejudice. This way, the plaintiff(s) have to pay Glock's legal fees and the case cannot be reopened. Such should be the fate of any frivolous lawsuits.