Legal warfare continues against the firearms industry in the form of yet another lawsuit filed against Glock. This time, it’s the city of Philadelphia filing their complaint alleging, as in previous suits, that Glock’s designs are too easily convertible into machine guns and claiming Glock’s marketing practices encourage people to make these illegal modifications.
Last year, Glock announced the end of certain pistol models implicated in previous suits while redesigning others and announcing the new V-series line. The announcement came shortly after California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a ban on the sale of Glock and Glock-style handguns. NRA, along with Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Poway Weapons & Gear, and two NRA members quickly filed suit in federal court to challenge the ban in Jaymes v. Bonta. That case remains pending.
While Glock never conceded that these design changes were a legal defense maneuver, based on the onslaught of legal and legislative attacks, some chose to connect those dots. Yet any hopes that those efforts might be enough to satisfy the anti-gun politicians and activists proved short-lived.
The latest Philadelphia complaint speaks directly to the new Glock changes stating that “it remains to be seen whether these models are as susceptible to switches as previous designs,” and makes clear that ultimately it does not matter if the new pistols are convertible or not. Nor does it matter that a whole line of previously targeted Glock firearms are no longer being made or sold. Nor does it matter that Glock does not manufacture “switches” for sale to the public. Nor does it matter that Glock is being sued over the criminal activities of unaffiliated third parties. According to the city, the fact that Glock has not taken measures to “remove them from the market” is enough to continue the legal assault.
With similar lawsuits filed against Glock by other states and attorneys general targeting the brand over the existence of these so-called Glock-switches, the reality remains that these switches have since their inception been prohibited under federal law from possession or installation for civilian use.
A large part of Philadelphia’s almost 100-page complaint focuses on claims of “deceptive” and “misleading” advertisements by Glock and is replete with erroneous, frivolous, and contradictory claims, all attempting to maneuver around critical protections provided by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The PLCAA prohibits lawsuits against the gun industry for the criminal misuse of their products by a third party.
However, the city of Philadelphia is desperately trying to throw everything against the wall to see what may stick in the form of a PLCAA predicate exception claim arguing that Glock violated state consumer protection laws through their marketing of guns.
Philadelphia claims, among other things:
Glock promotes [switches’] use through advertising on influential social media platforms and elsewhere, touting how “fun” it is to possess a fully automatic Glock, the sole purpose of which is to inflict a high number of fatalities in a short amount of time. . . With its advertisements, Glock deceives young people into thinking machine guns are “cool.
Glock’s trade practices are immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous. Despite being aware that converted Glock handguns have caused death and other serious injuries to Philadelphia and Pennsylvania residents.
Firearm companies have teamed up with partners like the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) in an industry-wide effort to market firearms to kids.
Interestingly, the complaint repeatedly and forcefully states how misleading it is for Glock to proclaim their firearms are safe but then acknowledges that they are trusted for law enforcement use by stating: “To be clear, the City has long viewed the Glock pistol as a reliable weapon for use by its police department, for law enforcement, and for safeguarding the citizens of Philadelphia.”
The complaint additionally includes a litany of related social media posts for demonstrative purposes, including Glock’s many posts reiterating the rules of safe firearms handling, encouraging firearm safety practices, as well as the importance of education and training to somehow prove its point that Glock does not care about firearm safety.
Of note, a quick highlight of recent news out of California for Philadelphia to pay mind to: After a long-fought battle to defend California’s ban on firearms marketing, and after various losses in federal courts, the state was forced to concede through settlement that their marketing ban did indeed violate the First Amendment, is now permanently enjoined, and the state must pay $1.38 million dollars in legal fees to the Second Amendment groups that challenged it. The court also directed the California Attorney General to notify district attorneys and local government legal offices across California that the law can no longer be enforced.
Ultimately, the continuing legislative and legal attacks on the firearms industry and their marketing practices are transparently not at all about the marketing or advertising practices. The issue is squarely about the fact that Glock exists at all, that Glock sells some of the most popular firearms in America, and the fact that the PLCAA still exists as federal law.
Philadelphia’s lawsuit seeks a court order prohibiting Glock from continuing their marketing practices. For the city, District Attorney Larry Krasner’s lawsuit chooses performative antics over public safety efforts by blaming Glock’s marketing tactics for his city’s ongoing violent crime. That sort of deflection is not going to make anyone safer … but, then again, public safety is not the point of these efforts.
More Like This From Around The NRA
