We can file this one under “confusion masquerading as concern.” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is targeting Glock, Inc., joining a coalition of 13 attorneys general in threatening action against the gun manufacturer.
Democrat attorneys general have accused Glock of manufacturing pistols that are easily converted into fully automatic firearms. The officials allege that, with a simple addition of a particular part, people could turn their handguns into illegally modified weapons.
In a statement, Ellison and the rest of the coalition announced that they sent a letter to the company demanding that they preserve evidence related to its products.
Attorney General Ellison and the coalition sent the letter to Glock in the wake of the gunmaker being sued by the City of Chicago. In that lawsuit, filed March 19, Chicago alleges that Glock has known that the guns can be easily adapted into a machine gun with the addition of an auto sear — a cheap, small device commonly known as a “Glock switch.” The City said that machine guns have become “a weapon of choice for criminals in Chicago.”
Glock has known that the ability to carry out this do-it-yourself conversion is built into its handgun design, and has refused to make meaningful design changes to fix this problem, the lawsuit alleges. Chicago is seeking a court order requiring Glock to end sales of these easily converted pistols to Chicago civilians and to put in place reasonable controls, safeguards and procedures to prevent their unlawful possession, use and sale.
Everyone has a role to play in stopping the epidemic of gun violence.
— Attorney General Keith Ellison (@AGEllison) March 28, 2024
My office is holding individual offenders accountable, but we are also going after businesses that negligently sold guns to straw purchasers.
I aim to find out if Glock's negligence broke Minnesota law too.
In the letter, the officials claim that this “Glock switch” would enable the weapon to fire up to 1,200 rounds per minute. However, as is usually the case with anti-gunners, Ellison’s claims are far from the truth.
RedState’s Ward Clark ripped this argument into tiny little pieces.
First: 1,200 rounds per minute? It’s pretty certain a Glock’s action can’t cycle that quickly. The M134 minigun, that of movie fame, runs at from 2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute, and it has a battery of six rotating barrels driven by an electric motor.
Second: Even if we concede that these guns can be so modified, the rate of fire notwithstanding, Attorney General Ellison is calling Glock to account for illegal modifications made to their legal product. This would be akin to charging Chevrolet with a crime because someone made some illegal modification to one of their cars and then used it to rob a bank.
It is possible to legally own one of the devices to which Ellison is referring if one wants to go through the National Firearms Act process to do so; they are called an “auto-sear,” and a Glock pistol so modified is indeed capable of automatic fire, although not at anywhere near 1,200 rounds per minute; as he is in the habit of doing where guns are concerned, Ellison just made that part up. While, initially, some of these “parts kits” were imported from China, there are now 3D printing plans widely available, and no matter how much AG Ellison tries to blame Glock, that toothpaste is not going back in the tube.
So, do Ellison and his comrades actually believe this erroneous argument, or do they know that it is bovine excrement? Both could be possible. But the reality is that anti-gunner politicians and activists are largely ignorant about guns and the issue of gun-related crimes. There have been plenty of other instances in which those opposing gun rights have displayed their vast ignorance of the item they seek to prevent people from keeping and bearing.
Remember when anti-gun activist David Hogg stepped in it last year when he claimed people don’t need magazines that carry 30-rounds while showing off his shooting “prowess?”
What about when Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera showed that he did not understand the difference between a semi-automatic and fully automatic rifle?
These people have no idea what they are talking about, yet they want to tell you what firearms you can and cannot own. Even more terrifying is that none of these people even care whether their arguments are accurate. Their objective is not to ensure gun safety or to curb violence. Their objective is to make it harder for lawful Americans to own firearms.
The approach of the attorneys general ignores the reality that it makes more sense to focus on those using guns for nefarious purposes instead of targeting the gun and the company manufacturing it.
The focus on the hardware further illustrates how little Democrats care about crime involving firearms. Instead of focusing on the bad guys, they hone in on the instruments they use to victimize people. If these people get their way, the crime issue will continue getting worse as more people remain unarmed.
