In a landmark legal action, the Attorneys General of Minnesota and New Jersey filed lawsuits on Thursday against Glock, accusing the firearms manufacturer of producing handguns that can be easily modified into illegal machine guns with a cheap accessory known as a “Glock switch.”
These $20 switches, according to the lawsuits, can transform Glock handguns—regarded as one of the most popular brands in the country—into high-powered, easily concealable weapons capable of firing up to 1,200 rounds per minute. The switch, the suits argue, poses a reckless danger to public safety by enabling the creation of automatic weapons that are illegal under both state and federal law.
The lawsuits claim that Glock has been aware of the vulnerability of its handguns to these switches since at least 1998, yet has failed to take adequate measures to alter their design to prevent such modifications.
“We are taking legal action against Glock because the company knowingly sold products into our state for decades that can be easily converted into deadly machine guns,” said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin. “These guns are killing our residents, our police officers, and our children.”
While Glock did not immediately respond to requests for comment, the company is based in Smyrna, Georgia, and is owned by its Austrian parent company.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a leading firearm trade association, dismissed the lawsuits as frivolous, claiming they were an attempt to push unconstitutional gun control measures. The group noted that the switches are not manufactured by Glock and are typically produced overseas—often in China—and can also be fabricated using 3D printers.
Federal law strictly regulates machine guns, which are defined as firearms capable of firing multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. The lawsuits aim to hold Glock responsible for facilitating the proliferation of these easily-modified weapons, with the plaintiffs alleging that the gun maker has created a public nuisance and violated various consumer protection and product liability laws.
The lawsuits mark the first steps of a newly-formed alliance of Democratic state attorneys general, who are collaborating to hold gun manufacturers accountable for their role in the nation’s gun violence crisis. This coalition, which includes 15 states and the District of Columbia, intends to use state-level civil liability and consumer protection laws to combat gun violence, as federal protections for gun companies limit liability.
“The coordinated efforts of these attorneys general represent a significant shift in firearms litigation,” said Timothy Lytton, a professor at Georgia State University. “This could mark the beginning of a new chapter in how states address gun violence through legal means.”
The push for increased accountability from firearms manufacturers follows a major legal victory against Remington Arms, which agreed in 2022 to settle for $73 million with the families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. That case, along with other recent legal actions, highlights a growing movement to explore alternative legal avenues for addressing gun violence.
The lawsuits filed Thursday against Glock seek a variety of remedies, including court orders requiring the company to pay restitution and disgorge profits from the sale of modified firearms. The Minnesota case also calls for an injunction that would force Glock to redesign its handguns to prevent modifications, while New Jersey is requesting the court to stop the company from distributing firearms that can be easily altered into machine guns within the state.
In addition to the legal challenges in New Jersey and Minnesota, Glock was sued earlier this year by the city of Chicago, which reported the recovery of over 1,100 modified Glock pistols by its police force between 2021 and 2023.
The legal landscape for firearms manufacturers continues to evolve, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to strike down a federal ban on “bump stocks,” accessories that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire rapidly, mimicking the action of machine guns.
Attorney General Platkin expressed confidence in the strength of the case, despite the evolving legal challenges surrounding firearms regulation. “While the Supreme Court’s stance on firearms remains uncertain, we believe we have a solid legal foundation for this lawsuit,” Platkin stated.
As gun violence continues to affect communities across the country, the lawsuits against Glock represent a significant step in holding firearms manufacturers accountable for the dangerous products they produce. With more states joining the legal battle against the gun industry, the outcome of these cases could reshape the future of gun regulation in America.
Read more: