Groups sue Chicago suburbs for more gun control

[flamin lib]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/07/us-usa-chicago-guns-idUSKCN0PH2J620150707

A group of civil rights activists on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against three Chicago suburbs to force them to take stricter gun-control measures to stem the flow of weapons into the city's crime-ridden neighborhoods.

The complaint filed in Cook County Circuit Court against the towns of Riverdale, Lyons and Lincolnwood said gunshops there, along with stores in Gary, Indiana, supply a fifth of guns seized by police at crime scenes in the city.
====
The Chicago Sun-Times reported that similar lawsuits filed in the past have had limited impact. The Illinois Supreme Court in 2004 dismissed a lawsuit that the City of Chicago had brought against gun dealers and others after undercover officers posed as gang members and bought dozens of guns, the Sun-Times said.

Why sue the local governments? Because the PLCAA (Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act) makes it almost impossible to get a conviction against a gun dealer. The level of proof is so high that it is almost impossible to reach. One case against a gun dealer sued for a straw purchase took ten years to work it's way to the supreme court even though it was a civil case that only requires a "preponderance of evidence" to get a conviction instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases.

One of the suburbs is home to Chuck's Gun Shop, one of the 5% of gun dealers that is responsible for 80% of crime guns according to the Brady Center for Gun Violence.

Supporters of the PLCAA say that if a car is used to commit a crime you wouldn't be able to sue the maker. Sounds like it makes sense, right? If the PLCAA were applied to GM the ignition switch issue that resulted in a dozen deaths would have protected them because the switch met design specs, never mind the specs were a bag of fetid dingo's kidneys. The PLCAA protects Glock which produces a gun with no mechanical safety and a very short trigger pull (technically called "creep" for the gunners out there) which makes it so dangerous that the resulting injuries have a name in the gun community. It's called Glock Leg Syndrome because of the number of discharges that happen as it is drawn from its holster. Google it! But Glock can't be sued because they DESIGNED it that way.

It's time to repeal the PLCAA.

[randys1]

1. As we know the comparison to cars is DUMB, cars are not built for the purpose of KILLING

guns are.

Guns are manufactured to do two things, shoot for fun, shoot to kill.

Regardless of the circumstances when a gun is used to kill, that is the purpose of the product.

They like to use alcohol also, again, DUMB.

Alcohol is not made to kill people, it does kill people but that is not the purpose of the product.

Product liability lawsuits work relatively simply, or should.

The reason gun manufacturers and sellers etal need special laws to protect them, as I have said before, is without those laws they would rightfully be sued repeatedly, successfully for their negligence.

[flamin lib]

2. Yes, and THAT is the purpose of liability suits.

To change the behavior of a manufacturer. If Glock had to pay damages in $ Millions for Glock Leg Syndrome you can bet yer sweet ass that they'd add a mechanical safety. And so would every other gun maker like Keltek.

Funny, the job description of the US military is to tear things up and kill people and yet every small arms spec let for bid requires a mechanical safety but any yahoo with no training and no experience can buy a Glock or Keltek without one. Go figure . . .

[randys1]

3. The whole gun issues resolves itself if we do two things, enforce the 2nd as written

not as interpreted by a rightwing racist asshole like Scalia, and allow the courts to do what they do best when it comes to product liability.

Hey, I love shooting guns at skeet and so on. It is fun as hell.

I would love to own one of those western type Winchester rifles that you feed the round in from the side, like I saw in cowboy movies when I was a kid a million years ago.

I would love to own it, shoot it, etc. But I guess I wont because I dont want to be a hypocrite about guns, and I guess I wont because the upside to owning and playing with that gun is VASTLY outweighed by the downside given the overall harm done by guns in general.'

Result is I give up the item for the greater good.

EVEN IF I conceded that the 2nd amendment means what the NRA told Scalia to say it means, that an individual right is there, when do I grow up and concede that even though I have a right to this dangerous article used in a hobby, I wont buy it, own it, for the reasons of the greater good?

When do people do that?