Gun manufacturers are once again under legal attack as multiple states and cities have filed lawsuits against Glock, one of the world’s largest firearm manufacturers. Attorney Tom Grieve, a former state prosecutor and gun rights advocate, warns that these lawsuits are not just about one company but part of a broader strategy to cripple the firearms industry through legal warfare.
A New Wave of Lawsuits Against Glock
Grieve explains that Baltimore, Maryland, recently filed a lawsuit against Glock, claiming that its handguns are too easily modified into automatic weapons and are thus contributing to gun violence in the city. However, Baltimore is not alone – Minnesota, New Jersey, Illinois (via Chicago), and now Baltimore have all taken legal action against Glock, pushing a similar argument.
The Legal Claims Against Glock
The core argument in these lawsuits is that Glock has a duty to prevent its firearms from being modified with so-called “Glock switches” – small devices that can convert a semi-automatic Glock handgun into a fully automatic weapon. The lawsuits allege that Glock knowingly produces handguns that are too easy to modify and therefore should be held accountable for gun violence in these cities.
According to Grieve, this is a dangerous precedent because it shifts the blame from criminals who modify firearms illegally onto the manufacturer that originally made them as legal semi-automatic weapons. He points out that if this logic were applied to other industries, car manufacturers could be sued if criminals modified cars for illegal street racing or drug dealers used certain phone brands to coordinate illegal activity.
A Coordinated Legal Strategy to Bankrupt Gun Companies
Grieve warns that these lawsuits are not just about seeking justice or public safety – but about bankrupting gun manufacturers through endless legal battles. This strategy, known as “lawfare” (legal warfare), is designed to drain companies of financial resources through continuous litigation costs rather than actually winning cases in court.
He points to a similar wave of lawsuits in the 1990s, when states and local governments filed coordinated lawsuits against gun manufacturers, seeking to hold them responsible for gun violence. These lawsuits weren’t necessarily meant to win in court – they were meant to make it too expensive for these companies to stay in business.
The Financial Impact of Legal Warfare
During the 1990s lawsuits, Grieve explains, gun manufacturers faced millions of dollars in legal costs per day just to defend themselves. According to a 1999 report from The New Yorker, some estimates suggested that defending against 20 separate lawsuits could cost the industry up to $1 million per day.
Gun control groups and state attorneys general knew that even if they lost every single case, the financial strain alone could force some gun manufacturers out of business. Several companies, such as Davis Industries, were bankrupted as a result, and others, including Smith & Wesson, were pressured into signing “compliance agreements” with gun control activists to avoid further lawsuits.
Glock as the New Target
Grieve notes that Glock was heavily targeted during the 1990s legal battles, and now history is repeating itself. He highlights a quote from former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who reportedly threatened Glock executives by saying, “If you do not sign, your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door.”
This aggressive approach is now resurfacing with the current lawsuits. If gun control groups and state governments succeed in forcing Glock into settlements or compliance agreements, Grieve warns that other manufacturers will soon follow.
Why This Strategy is So Effective
One of the reasons why this legal warfare is so effective, according to Grieve, is that gun manufacturers cannot consolidate multiple lawsuits into one case – a legal maneuver that would allow them to save time and money by fighting them all at once. Instead, these lawsuits are spread out across different states, forcing companies like Glock to defend each case separately, racking up millions in legal fees.
In addition, these lawsuits are being funded by taxpayer money. Governments can afford to engage in long-term legal battles because they have deep pockets and no financial risk. Meanwhile, private gun manufacturers must pay for their legal defense out of their own earnings, making it difficult to sustain a prolonged legal fight.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
To combat this issue, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005, which shields gun manufacturers from lawsuits that attempt to hold them responsible for crimes committed with their products. However, Grieve notes that gun control advocates have found ways to work around this law by exploiting certain legal loopholes and state-level laws.
For example, Remington agreed to a $73 million settlement in a lawsuit related to the Sandy Hook shooting, despite the fact that the shooter’s firearm was legally purchased. This set a precedent for using creative legal arguments to bypass PLCAA protections.
Other Industries Enjoy Similar Legal Protections
One of the biggest misconceptions, according to Grieve, is the claim that gun manufacturers are unfairly shielded from lawsuits while other industries are not. He explains that several industries have similar legal protections, including:
- Vaccine manufacturers, which are exempt from lawsuits related to vaccine side effects under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
- Internet service providers, which are protected from defamation and copyright infringement lawsuits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
- Airline companies, which were shielded from liability lawsuits related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
These protections exist because courts have historically recognized that companies cannot be held responsible for the criminal misuse of their products – except, it seems, when it comes to gun manufacturers.
What’s Next for Glock and the Gun Industry?
According to Grieve, if the lawsuits against Glock are successful, we can expect a domino effect in which more gun manufacturers are targeted. He warns that this isn’t just about Glock – it’s about setting a precedent that allows the government to sue firearm companies out of existence.
If Glock caves under the legal pressure, other companies will be forced to comply with government demands or risk facing similar lawsuits. In the long term, this could lead to fewer gun manufacturers, higher firearm prices, and stricter government control over what guns can be sold.
A Renewed Attack on Gun Rights
Grieve makes it clear: the lawsuits against Glock are not about public safety – they are about using the legal system to dismantle the Second Amendment.
This strategy has been used before, and unless gun owners and firearm advocates push back against these legal attacks, the gun control movement will continue using lawfare to achieve what they cannot accomplish through legislation.
For now, the fate of Glock – and potentially the rest of the firearms industry – hangs in the balance.
Explore the full insights by viewing the video on Tom Grieve’s YouTube channel here.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa writes about homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Whether it’s canning vegetables or setting up a rainwater harvesting system, Lisa’s goal is to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.