Lawsuit Against Glock Moves Forward — A New Front in the War on Gun Manufacturers

A new lawsuit targeting one of America’s most well-known firearm manufacturers is moving forward—and it represents a growing strategy that gun owners across the country need to be paying attention to.

In Maryland, a court has allowed a case against Glock to proceed, despite long-standing federal protections for firearm manufacturers.

The Case: Blaming the Manufacturer for Criminal Misuse

In Baltimore v. Glock, a Maryland state court denied Glock’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to hold the company liable for crimes committed using illegally modified firearms.  The lawsuit, backed by anti-gun organizations and local government officials, claims Glock firearms can be illegally converted using “auto sears” (commonly called switches).

It also states the company failed to do enough to prevent those modifications.  This amounts to contributing to a “public nuisance”. However, here’s the critical point those modifications are already illegal under federal law.

A Direct Challenge to Federal Protections

For decades, firearm manufacturers have been protected under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)—a law specifically designed to prevent companies from being held liable for crimes committed by third parties using their products.

This case attempts to get around that protection. Maryland lawmakers passed the Gun Industry Accountability Act (GIAA) in 2024, creating a new legal pathway to sue manufacturers by claiming they failed to implement “reasonable controls.” The court ruled that this state-level law is enough to allow the lawsuit to proceed—for now. That’s a major development.

Why This Matters

At 2 If By Sea Tactical, we’ve been tracking this strategy closely. Because this isn’t really about Glock. It’s about creating legal pressure on firearm manufacturers and forcing costly litigation, regardless of outcome. They are attempting to use courts to achieve what legislation often cannot.  Even if Glock ultimately wins, the process itself costs millions, drains resources, and sets precedent for future lawsuits.

The Core Issue Being Ignored

Let’s be clear about what’s actually happening. Glock manufactures semi-automatic firearms—legal products sold nationwide. The devices being discussed are auto sears / “switches”.  These devices are already classified as machine guns under federal law and are illegal for civilian possession.

No one in this case has alleged that Glock is currently or ever manufactures these devices. Has or has ever sold these devices or participates in illegal conversions. Instead, the argument is that the company should somehow be responsible for what criminals choose to do with illegal parts.

A Growing National Trend

This lawsuit is not an isolated incident. Similar legal efforts are underway in California, New York, New Jersey, and unfortunately here in Minnesota. All of these efforts are using variations of the same strategy. First, pass state-level laws.  Then file lawsuits to create new liability theories. Ultimately these goals are to target manufacturers instead of criminals.

Courts allowing these cases to move forward—even at early stages—signals that this approach is gaining traction. This is dangerous and in direct violation of Federal Law. If this legal theory succeeds, the implications are massive.

This theory would open the door to more Lawsuits against manufacturers for criminal misuse. It ultimately will accomplish the intended goal of increasing costs across the firearms industry. This would reduce availability of firearms and accessories which is what these anti-gun states and groups are attempting.  This is a backdoor method of restricting Second Amendment rights.

Because if manufacturers are tied up in endless litigation, the end result is the same less access for law-abiding citizens. This theory has been tried before in the case of machine guns.  When the Hughes Amendment portion of the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) was passed in 1986.  This was just closing the backdoor of the NFA on all gun owners. We are seeing this line of thinking expand outward.

Final Thoughts from 2 If By Sea Tactical

This case is about more than one company. It’s about redefining responsibility. It is about shifting blame from criminals who break the law to companies that produce lawful products. Once that shift happens, it won’t stop with one manufacturer—or one state. We’ll continue to follow this case closely, because the outcome could shape the future of the firearms industry—and the rights of millions of Americans—for years to come.

Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world.  As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube and Rumble channels and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance. We are proud to be Southern Minnesota source for all things 2A.

Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.