Last week, attorneys general from Minnesota and New Jersey filed lawsuits against Glock, one of the world’s largest firearm manufacturers. The lawsuits allege that Glock violated state laws by manufacturing firearms that are “too easy” to illegally modify into automatic weapons. The lawsuits are seen as part of a broader strategy to circumvent the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which shields gun manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their products when sold lawfully.
Legal Framework and Claims
The lawsuits invoke newly enacted state laws allowing authorities to pursue legal action against gun manufacturers for creating a “public nuisance.” These laws compel gunmakers to adopt “reasonable controls” to prevent the criminal misuse of their products, even when the manufacturers comply with existing federal and state regulations.
In this case, the plaintiffs argue that Glock’s semiautomatic pistols can be easily converted into automatic weapons using devices like “switches” or other parts readily available online. They contend that Glock should have designed its firearms to resist such modifications.
Historical Context and Federal Protections
The PLCAA, passed in 2005, was designed to prevent gun manufacturers from being sued for crimes committed by third parties using their products. It codified the principle that companies lawfully conducting business cannot be held responsible for criminal misuse of their goods. However, exceptions exist, including cases where manufacturers violate laws governing firearm sales or knowingly sell to prohibited buyers.
Critics of the lawsuits, including gun rights advocates, argue that the claims represent a distortion of these exceptions. They fear such litigation could erode the protections afforded by the PLCAA, opening the door to an onslaught of similar cases against the gun industry.
A Coordinated Strategy?
Observers note that the lawsuits against Glock align with similar actions elsewhere, including a pending case in Chicago. This case involves Everytown Law, a legal advocacy group linked to billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s gun control efforts. The organization has openly promoted legal strategies to challenge the gun industry, including publishing guides on how to sue firearm manufacturers.
President Biden has previously voiced support for repealing the PLCAA, describing it as a key priority for gun control advocates. This context has led some to speculate that the recent lawsuits may have tacit backing from federal officials.
Implications for the Industry
The lawsuits against Glock underscore a broader effort by gun control advocates to hold manufacturers accountable for crimes committed with firearms. Gun rights groups argue that these cases unfairly shift responsibility from criminals to law-abiding businesses, creating undue burdens on the industry.
If successful, the lawsuits could set a precedent for additional legal challenges targeting other gunmakers. For now, the cases will test the limits of both state laws and the PLCAA’s federal protections, with significant implications for the future of gun industry litigation.
