So when do they sue all the car makers for producing cars that can exceed the speed limits? Or cars that can be driven by drunks? Cars that can be souped up for drag racing?
These anti-U.S. Democrats are exactly why the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed. Given the Supreme Court a few months ago ruled 9-0 (!) that U.S. enemy Mexico cannot sue gun makers in America for the violence of their drug cartels, this "case" has no chance. I would jail all Democrats who even try to violate the PLCAA. Any expenses incurred by Glock must be billed to the taxpayers of Seattle.
I hope they start with their law enforcement agencies. If I were Glock, I'd invoke the "Ronnie Barrett Response," imposed on California for banning the Barrett .50 rifles for citizen use. ("Ban my lawful product against citizens? I'll cut off the supply of my product to your LEOs!") I honor Ronnie Barrett for that!
Absolute truth!
And in the mean time pay the lawyers out of the taxpayers pockets. The only reason for doing this is grift.
Unfortunately, the future already has plans for this. The Tesla for example can be remotely shut down. Some courts have already ordered breathalyzer cut offs installed for some folks and their cars.
Yes, judges/courts have the authority to decide if that is an appropriate part of the punishment for an individual convicted of driving under the influence. Personally, I have no problem with them making that part of the penalty for repeat offenders or for blowing an insanely high number on their breathalyzer or for the same on a blood test. In my view both of those constitute a flagrant disregard for the law and safety for others and themselves. Car manufacturers aren't installing them at the factory.
