Reader Dano sent me this:

CHICAGO—The city of Chicago filed a lawsuit Monday against an Indiana gun shop it says is responsible for the flow of hundreds and possibly thousands of guns into the nation’s third-largest city, making it one of the largest out-of-state sellers of guns used in crimes here.

The lawsuit against Westforth Sports Inc. of Gary, Ind., is seeking the appointment of a special master to oversee the store’s operations and assure that it abides by federal gun laws for a period of five years, as well as monetary damages.

“These eye-popping numbers are not the result of bad luck or coincidence or location,” the lawsuit says. “They are the natural and predictable outcome of a business model that ignores the federal laws and regulations that are intended to keep the public safe.”

Chicago Sues Indiana Gun Shop Over Illegal Guns

This has failed miserably in the past. You may remember Bloomberg starting a campaign targeting “bad apples” via Moms and on his own.  I seem to recall the Brady bunch going that way also and some low level organization staging protests in front of alleged bad stores.  In Miami Dade, they targeted Lou’s Police Supply with a ton of bad publicity trying to shame them by suggesting they were selling guns in a shady manner to any felon walking in, which was the dumbest accusation possible for two reasons: Lou’s sells more guns than anybody in Miami Dade county and because the place is worse than a donut shop: It is a cop hang out. My first gun in the US was bought in Lou’s.

The target of this lawsuit, besides telling Chicagoans “See me! I am doing gun prevention shit!” is to hit the store in the pocket with a frivolous lawsuit even though they know they will lose. Gun Controllers have no fiduciary common sense because they can waste the taxpayer’s money. Make it painful for them to do stuff like that and you see this idiocies disappear.

Take for example a bill still alive in the Florida Legislature: SB 1884 – Preemption of Firearms and Ammunition Regulation.

Providing that written or unwritten policies are subject to provisions allowing for recovery of damages if such policies violate specified provisions; providing that a plaintiff challenging a local government regulation concerning firearms is considered a prevailing plaintiff for certain purposes in specified circumstances, etc.

What municipalities were/are doing is to either write code or policy prohibiting something related to gun and in some cases just be an order by a superior and them when they got sued for violating pre-emption, withdraw the order before the case is brought to court.   The people bringing the lawsuit would have no standing anymore because the policy has been removed, but expenses were incurred and time was wasted. And the best part is that they can do it again at a later because they can do the same idiocy again. This bill makes them pay anyway.  And as you can imagine, the Florida Democrats hate it with a passion and are trying to delay it with amendments so it is not discussed and voted on before Friday. In fact, this amendment was introduced as I was writing this post:

 The amendments made by this act shall not apply until 365 consecutive days have passed without an incident in the state in which three or more persons were killed or injured by the use of a firearm.

The misuse of the public funds for Gun Control is basic for their cause. Bloomberg is only a recent phenomenon and even hizzformerhonor of New York seems to be withdrawing from the fight. Gun Control is a minority and that is reflected in their voluntary funding so they need to funnel cash from somewhere else, namely your pockets.



Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

One thought on “Rehashing old tactics under a favorable DC administration”
  1. I’d like to see a law (I know. Bad right there.) that makes any proposed law or rule later found to be unconstitutional, or is unconstitutional on its face, a disqualifying factor for ever again holding any public office. And, if so found, would be grounds for immediate removal from any office currently held.
    Every one of these policos proposing these laws swears an oath to “… honor and support.. ” the Constitution, which they violate when aforesaid law or rule is proposed.
    Oh wait! Never mind. Violation of Oath of Office is already an offense. It’s just not ever being enforced.

Login or register to comment.