Staff Reports
Seattle’s decision to sue Glock over the alleged ease with which its pistols can be illegally modified marks a troubling escalation in the assault on Second Amendment rights. Instead of focusing on the criminals actually committing gun-related crimes, city officials have elected to go after a reputable manufacturer that sells products lawfully used by millions of Americans. This legal action is not about public safety—it’s about undermining the rights of responsible gun owners and setting the stage for a dangerous precedent that could sweep the entire firearms industry into a vortex of frivolous lawsuits.
The crux of Seattle’s argument rests on the idea that Glock pistols constitute a “public nuisance” simply because they can be misused when criminals illegally modify them. What this ignores is the fundamental principle of personal responsibility: any mechanical product, from cars to power tools, can be made dangerous if willfully manipulated by those intent on breaking the law. Holding Glock—or any manufacturer—responsible for the actions of a few bad actors completely shifts the blame away from personal accountability and deflects attention from the real cause of rising crime: repeat violent offenders and lenient judicial policies.
Even more concerning is the city’s direct challenge to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), the federal law designed to shield gun manufacturers from being held liable for crimes committed by third parties. Undermining this law would mean every firearm manufacturer in America is one lawsuit away from bankruptcy—not because of flaws in their products, but because of how criminals misuse them. It’s as illogical as attempting to shutter auto companies whenever a drunk driver gets behind the wheel.
By targeting not just Glock but also local gun shops, Seattle reveals its broader strategy: a campaign of lawfare with the goal of stigmatizing and eventually bankrupting businesses that serve law-abiding customers. Rather than making streets safer, these lawsuits serve only to make it harder for responsible Americans to exercise their right to self-defense. For gun owners, this is a clarion call—if left unchecked, this strategy will spread to other cities, further eroding the constitutional protections that have long safeguarded the right to keep and bear arms.
This lawsuit is merely the latest front in the larger war against the Second Amendment. It’s a transparent attempt by anti-gun politicians to achieve in the courts what they cannot secure through legislation. The real cost will be borne by every upstanding citizen who values personal liberty and the natural right to self-defense. As these legal attacks intensify, it’s more vital than ever for defenders of the Constitution to stand firm and resist efforts that would erase fundamental American freedoms.
