Gun manufacturer Glock sued by victim of NYC subway shooting: ‘have created this appetite’

One of the victims of the mass shooting attack in a New York City subway is suing Glock, the manufacturer of the gun used in the attack. The woman is claiming that her injuries were due to Glock’s marketing strategies.

The victim is Ilene Steur, and she is one of the ten people allegedly shot by Frank James when he opened fire on a subway train in Brooklyn on April 12. According to the prosecutors, James used a Glock 17 pistol—which he had legally purchased at an Ohio pawn shop back in 2011—during his shooting rampage.

Attorneys for Steur filed the lawsuit this week, and they contend that Glock, Inc. is directly responsible for the attack and the subsequent injuries. The lawsuit alleges that the gun manufacturer’s business practices and activities constitute a “public nuisance” to the state of New York. The lawsuit is leveraging a New York state law that was passed just last year, and which allows people to take legal action against firearms manufacturers using the “public nuisance” argument, according to reporting by Fox Business.

The law was challenged by gun manufacturers, as well as supporters of the Second Amendment, over its vagueness and unconstitutionality, but it was upheld last week by a federal court.

Steur’s lawyers have taken advantage of the new law to argue that Glock’s marketing is responsible for the mass shooting and is a threat to public safety. Fox Business reports that their filing maintains that Glock’s advertising tactics place an emphasis on their guns’ “high capacity and ease of concealment, that appeal to prospective purchasers with criminal intent, including but not limited to through advertisement, product placement in movies and rap music.”

Glock has long been a standard-issue sidearm for law enforcement agencies in the U.S. as well as many other countries. In light of this, the lawsuit places blame on the company for aggressively marketing its weapons to police departments for the last forty years, as well as to civilians. The suit claims that Glocks are “unsuited to personal defense or recreation,” and that a Glock handgun “enables an individual in possession of the weapon to inflict unparalleled civilian carnage.”

It also alleges that Glock manufactures and sells “more firearms than legal purchasers can buy,” with the intent of creating and supporting a lucrative secondary market that criminals and others with malicious intent can use to obtain the weapons. However, in the case of the New York subway shooting suspect, the gun was legally purchased rather than obtained on the black market.

Sanford Rubenstein, one of Steur’s attorneys, maintains that Glock’s business practices have created havoc in New York, whether the firearms are legally purchased or not.

“It’s our position that [Glock’s] marketing tactics or distribution strategies have created this appetite for purchasers whether they purchased the gun legally or not,” he told Fox Business. “That created a public nuisance.”

“At the end of the day, what we really need is Congress and the president to enact new legislation to stop the immunity gun companies have from damages to victims,” he added. “That’s what really needs to be done here. But I think an overhaul of the immunity statute that exists in Congress is not something that’s going to happen in the near future, unfortunately.”

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Todd Jaquith

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

BPR INSIDER COMMENTS

Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

20 thoughts on “Gun manufacturer Glock sued by victim of NYC subway shooting: ‘have created this appetite’

  1. While you are at, why not sue the manufacturer of the subway car you were in because it encouraged a crowded venue of defenseless targets for a crazed shooter?

    Do not leave out the makers of the rails upon which the confining rail car sat, and then there’s the manufacturer of the yellow vest which disguised the nut’s intentions, but do not forget the …(endless chain of contributing factors).

  2. Anything for a dollar . Ambulance chaser with zero integrity must be fueling this fire .

  3. Ok in the next 10 minutes 10 people will die due to a drunk driver. I guess we can now sue the car manufacturer for building the car. A fat person dies of a heart attack, let’s sue all restaurants because everything they make is unhealthy and makes you fat.

  4. Glock needs to do just as Barrett did with california, tell all law enforcement in these idiot run states to go eph themselves.

  5. GM, Ford, Chrysler, Budweiser, Coors, Krispy Creme, McDonalds….who else?

    If you can sue one manufacturer for creating a nuisance, you should be able to sue the, all!

    Watch what you ask for, you just might get it!

  6. Stop trying to get money from a manufacturer. Stop playing into your lawyers politics. You’re making a fool out of yourself! The only thing responsible for any shooting is the person who does the act!

  7. Between Comrade De Blasio & the new, back alley, race baiting pimp Mayor Adams, they have turned NY into the war zone of the 1970’s. Like a true Marxist leftist, they place blame elsewhere, never accepting responsibility.

  8. so let me understand this! So the people were shot with a gun that was in the hands of someone! and the law is going to allow the gun manufacturers to be sured? so the next time someone is killed by an auto or motorcycle as they were speeding or when the “drunk” driver kills someone then they should be able to sue both auto maker as well as the individual! what an Asinine decision

  9. Maybe they should just pull their product off the shelves in NYC and let the chips fall where they may, which would be total anarchy and chaos. NYC is alread a shit-hole city.Im glad my ex moved there. I hope shes gotten her fill of it.

  10. There once was a time when judges could review lawsuits before accepting them for trial. They could reject suits as being superfluous (without merit) and not add them to the docket. This allowed them to concentrate on cases that were on firm legal ground.

    If they still exercise this review. I can’t remember an example. I’m not referring to cases that lack standing.

    1. Yeah, but then they wouldn’t get the 15 minutes of fame they are all now craving.

  11. So now are we going to be able to sue Ford, GM, and Chrysler for the lives taken in drive thru slaughter? In DWI’s. That’s right…32 people every day die from drunk driving. And it is all Budweisers fault according to these people’s reasoning. How about the knife companies who knives came alive and stabbed people to death? Wait I know…let’s sue the baseball bat companies that made the bats that rioters used to assault and kill people. The list goes on and on. When does this madness stop? When courts start telling people to go pound sand. Because this woman is nothing but a leftist stooge who is probably getting paid to bring this frivolous law suit against a gun company that has NOTHING to do with the person who shot those people.

    1. You’ve made many valid points. You said the list goes on.
      Let’s not forget about the Bic lighters that lit themselves and set our cities on fire.

  12. I certainly hope Glock pushes back and defends themselves better than Remington, who left the matter to the insurance companies who caved and calculated it would be cheaper to settle the case than to actually defend their client and place the blame where it belonged, on the individuals who had the intent, who took the actions that harmed others, and committed the crimes.

    1. Remington did what they did because they knew they were filing bankruptcy.

    1. Gun grabbers want to destroy ALL gun manufacturers and all ammunition manufacturers.

      They will sue, and sue again. It’s LAWFARE. The commucrats use it all of the time.

Comments are closed.

Latest Articles