No firearms company is safe from the lawfare being waged by the gun control lobby, but gunmaker Glock is definitely the primary target of the anti-gunners at the moment. In California a bill could soon ban the sale of Glock handguns, while lawsuits seeking an injunction on the sale of what is arguably the most popular brand of pistols in the country have been filed by officials in Chicago, Illinois and Baltimore, Maryland (with the help of their allies in the anti-gun movement).
The gun control activists contend that Glock is essentially aiding and abetting violent criminals by not changing the design of their pistols to make it more difficult or impossible to illegally modify them into full-auto machine guns through the use of a switch, and the first lawsuits were filed after the Biden administration and then ATF Director Steve Dettelbach tried and failed to pressure Glock into making those design changes.
The gun company recently filed its response to Baltimore’s lawsuit seeking its dismissal, as well as a memorandum of law in support of the motion. The memo runs several dozen pages and is too long to quote in its entirety here, but you can read it for yourself if you’d like.
Glock is deploying several arguments in support of throwing out the lawsuit; including asserting that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act precludes litigation like this, as does Maryland law, which “does not recognize a cause of action for public nuisance based on the sale and distribution of legal consumer products.”
The most interesting argument, though, at least in my opinion, is Glock’s reminder that the state of Maryland could theoretically ban the sale of Glocks at any time, but have chosen not to take that step.
The Complaint alleges that Glock pistols are not suitable for sale to civilian consumers and Glock should be enjoined from selling them to “non-law-enforcement consumers in Maryland.”
Since 1988, Maryland has prohibited the sale of handguns to civilian consumers unless they have been approved by the Maryland Handgun Roster Board (“Board”). The Board consists of persons with specialized knowledge regarding firearm safety, including representatives of: (1) the Association of Chiefs of Police; (2) the Maryland State’s Attorney’s Association; (3) a handgun dealer, gunsmith or manufacturer; (4) the NRA or affiliated association; (5) an organization that advocates against handgun violence; and (6) five public members, two of whom shall be mechanical or electrical engineers. In determining whether a handgun should be approved, the Board is required to consider the following factors: (1) concealability; (2) ballistic accuracy; (3) weight; (4) quality of materials; (5) quality of manufacture; (6) reliability as to safety; (7) caliber; (8) detectability by the standard security equipment that is commonly used at an airport or courthouse and that is approved by the Federal Aviation Administration for use at airports in the United States; and (9) utility for legitimate sporting activities, self-protection, or law enforcement.
Based on the above standards, Maryland approves the sale of Glock pistols to civilian consumers that Plaintiffs now argue constitutes the creation of a public nuisance. In fact, Maryland currently approves of the sale of more than a hundred different models of Glock pistols to civilian consumers after it considered factors including their quality of materials and manufacture, reliability as to safety, and utility for legitimate sporting activities and self-protection by civilian consumers. If a pistol was deemed to be unreasonably dangerous to be possessed and used by civilian consumers because it too “easily accepts … MCDs,” the Board tasked with approving only “safe” handguns would presumably not have approved such a pistol for sale.
It’s a great point. If Glock’s design for their handguns is supposedly a proximate cause of criminals illegally modifiying their guns to shoot full-auto, then why isn’t the state of Maryland itself also a proximate cause of that criminal activity? After all, the Handgun Roster Board is explicitly tasked with ensuring that only “safe” handguns are available for sale in Maryland, so if they’re allowing “unsafe” handguns to be sold then shouldn’t the state government be a defendant in this lawsuit as well?
It’s also worth noting that the California bill banning the sale of Glocks doesn’t rely on CalDOJ to remove Glocks on the state’s handgun roster. In fact, Gen 4 and Gen 5 versions of Glocks are already prohibited for sale in California, but the state has sanctioned the sale of Gen 3 and earlier models, deeming them “safe” for consumers.
There’s a good reason why Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott and the folks at Everytown Law assisting in the city’s litigation aren’t pursuing any claims against the Maryland Handgun Roster Board; they like that board, and don’t want to do anything to jeopardize its existence. Handgun rosters can be used to remove or restrict some of the most popular handguns on the market, which makes then invaluable tools for the anti-gun crowd.
Baltimore wants a county judge to declare Glocks “unsafe” and ban their sale when the legislature has already authorized a state board to do that very thing. In fact, the board has already looked at every model of Glock available to civilian consumers and has decided that more than 100 models of the company’s products are safe to be sold and purchased by Maryland residents.
That alone should be reason enough for a judge to grant Glock’s motion to dismiss the case. This is Maryland that we’re talking about though, and common sense doesn’t always prevail when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms.
Editor’s Note: The radical gun control lobby will stop at nothing to enact their anti-2A agenda and strip us of our fundamental rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
