A brewing legal storm targets Glock, with lawsuits from Minnesota and New Jersey alleging the firearm giant’s handguns can be easily modified into illegal machine guns. The suits highlight a controversial add-on known as the “Glock switch,” a $20 device that transforms standard Glock handguns into rapid-fire weapons capable of discharging 1,200 rounds per minute.
The complaints claim Glock has long been aware of its handguns’ compatibility with these devices—dating back to 1998—but failed to redesign its weapons to prevent misuse. “Glock knowingly sold products into our state for decades that can be easily converted into machine guns, killing residents, law enforcement, and children,” asserted New Jersey’s Attorney General.
Legal Firepower
The lawsuits, filed by a coalition of attorneys general, mark a pivotal moment in the broader push to hold firearm manufacturers accountable for gun violence. These legal actions seek financial restitution and an overhaul of Glock’s handgun designs, aiming to reduce the risk of modification.
The lawsuits also spotlight the proliferation of the switches, which are widely available online, often sourced from overseas or even 3D-printed. While Glock did not manufacture these devices, the complaints accuse the company of contributing to a public nuisance by designing firearms uniquely susceptible to modification.
A Broader Strategy
This legal maneuver is part of a coordinated effort by Democratic attorneys general across 15 states and Washington, D.C., to leverage state laws as a workaround to federal protections shielding gun manufacturers from liability. Drawing comparisons to landmark lawsuits against the tobacco and opioid industries, the coalition hopes to forge a new path in firearm litigation.
Such efforts have seen mixed success. Notably, Remington Arms agreed to a $73 million settlement in 2022 with families affected by the Sandy Hook tragedy. Whether Glock faces similar accountability remains uncertain, as the legal battle continues to unfold.
The Stakes Ahead
The lawsuits not only challenge the gunmaker’s practices but also test the boundaries of federal protections for the firearm industry. Minnesota seeks a court mandate requiring Glock to design safer handguns, while New Jersey demands restrictions on the distribution of easily modifiable guns within its borders.
As debates over gun control intensify, this case could set a new precedent for holding manufacturers accountable. For now, Glock remains under scrutiny, with states seeking to redefine the responsibilities of the firearm industry in an era of escalating gun violence.
