Lawfare Puts Glock In Their Sights

A wave of legal and legislative efforts is forming across the United States, not to ban fully automatic weapons (which are already heavily regulated), but to target one of the most common and widely used handguns in America: the Glock. According to a report by Cowboy State Daily journalist Mark Heinz, states like California and Illinois are proposing outright bans on Glock handguns.

Their reasoning? Glocks can supposedly be “readily converted” into fully automatic weapons with illegal aftermarket parts known as “Glock switches.” But critics say this is a dangerous form of lawfare – a backdoor attempt to punish legal gun owners and bankrupt gun makers without a constitutional leg to stand on.

Glock Switches: Illegal and Reckless

To be clear, Glock switches, or “auto sears”, are already illegal. They’re small black-market devices that replace a part in the rear of a Glock slide, converting it from semi-auto to full-auto fire. The National Firearms Act of 1934 severely restricts any fully automatic firearm without special federal licensing, and installing such a device is a federal felony. Heinz notes that experts in Wyoming have gone on record calling these modifications “stupid and dangerous,” as poorly made switches can cause catastrophic malfunctions. But instead of focusing enforcement on the criminals who use them, some lawmakers now want to ban the legal guns themselves.

Legal Definitions on a Slippery Slope

In her video about this, YouTuber Liberty Doll dives into the alarming legislative language that could criminalize law-abiding Glock owners. Illinois’ HB4045, and California’s AB127, both aim to redefine what counts as a “machine gun” to include any semi-automatic pistol that is ‘readily convertible’. That broad term could be used to target not just Glocks but any number of striker-fired pistols, especially those with similar internal components. “This isn’t about switches,” Liberty Doll argues. “This is about using the excuse of switches to redefine and outlaw common firearms.”

A Coordinated Attack on Gunmakers

Gun rights attorney and YouTuber Tom Grieve connects these lawsuits and bills to a much older strategy. In his video, Grieve describes this as a deliberate form of lawfare meant to destroy the firearms industry through a barrage of costly litigation. “The goal is not necessarily to win in court,” Grieve explains. “The goal is to bankrupt gun companies through endless lawsuits.” He compares the current actions against Glock to similar lawsuits in the 1990s that nearly crushed American gunmakers until Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005.

Baltimore and Chicago Blame Glock

According to Grieve, the city of Baltimore has filed a lawsuit directly against Glock, claiming the company contributes to gun violence by manufacturing pistols that can be modified with illegal parts. Other cities and states, including Chicago, New Jersey, Maryland, and Minnesota, are following suit. These governments argue that Glock failed in its duty to make its pistols tamper-proof, essentially blaming the manufacturer for what criminals do to alter a legal product. “They want to hold Glock responsible for the actions of third parties,” Grieve says. “That’s like suing Ford because someone turned their Mustang into a getaway car.”

Popular, Proven, and Now Under Attack

What makes this push especially contentious is the fact that Glock handguns are some of the most popular pistols among law enforcement and civilians alike. In fact, as Heinz points out in his Cowboy State Daily article, Glocks are standard issue for thousands of police departments across the country. Their reliability, simplicity, and affordability have made them a go-to choice for decades. The suggestion that they are somehow inherently dangerous just because someone might try to illegally modify them has drawn sharp criticism from experts and gun owners alike.

The Heller Decision Still Stands

George Mocsary, Director of the Firearms Research Center and professor at the University of Wyoming College of Law, told Heinz that efforts to ban handguns outright are unlikely to stand up in court. He points to the landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which reaffirmed the individual right to own handguns. “The argument that Glocks should be banned because someone might misuse them will probably fail in court,” Mocsary said. He added that banning a gun based on how it could be misused is not how constitutional protections work.

Redefining Legality by Design

What we’re seeing here isn’t just overreach – it’s a redefinition of legality itself. If a Glock can be banned because a criminal might try to modify it, then what’s next? Banning any semi-auto rifle because it could be illegally altered? Banning SUVs because they could be used in crimes? At some point, we must draw the line between enforcing laws and rewriting them based on hypotheticals. As Liberty Doll warns, these bills essentially give the state the power to outlaw firearms based on potential, not reality.

Grandfather Clauses and Loopholes

Interestingly, Liberty Doll notes that California’s bill includes a grandfather clause for any affected firearms that are transferred to a licensed dealer before January 1, 2026. That’s a rare nod to legal firearm owners, but it’s little comfort when the rest of the bill would criminalize possession. Illinois’ bill, meanwhile, includes harsh penalties: up to 7 years in prison and a $25,000 fine for owning or transferring a “convertible” handgun. These penalties would apply even though Glock switches themselves are already banned under both state and federal law.

A Dangerous Legal Trend

Heinz quotes Mark Jones of Gun Owners of America, who warns that even gun-friendly states like Wyoming shouldn’t assume they’re safe from this trend. “If elections go bad in our primaries, and we lose strong Second Amendment supporters, anything is possible,” Jones said. He points to how Colorado transformed politically in just a decade, going from pro-gun to gun control-heavy in a matter of years. That’s why advocates are calling for vigilance – not just at the ballot box but in the courts and legislatures too.

The Endgame: Backdoor Gun Control

Grieve pulls no punches in identifying what’s really going on here: a backdoor attempt to regulate guns into extinction. He points out that even if these lawsuits fail, the sheer cost of defending against them could bankrupt companies like Glock. And if Glock falls, he argues, other manufacturers will be next. “They could lose every lawsuit and still win the war,” Grieve says. “All they have to do is outlast the shareholders with your taxpayer-funded attorneys.” It’s a sobering reminder that freedom doesn’t just disappear all at once – it can bleed out through legal paper cuts.

Glocks Are Just the Beginning

If this push succeeds, it won’t stop with Glocks. The logic being used, that this product could be misused, therefore it must be banned, is dangerous and wide-reaching. Whether you’re a gun owner or not, this is a test case for how lawfare can reshape industries by bypassing legislatures and relying on courts and fear. It’s up to voters, courts, and freedom-minded Americans to stop this before it spreads further. The Second Amendment is under attack – not by force, but by lawsuits, redefinitions, and coordinated pressure campaigns.

As always, the law should punish criminals, not tools. The fight for your rights might now rest in a courtroom, but its roots are still constitutional.