Judge Rejects Glock’s Defense
Glock had argued for dismissal, citing PLCAA immunity and constitutional protections. But Judge Sande ruled that Minnesota’s claims fell under an exception, noting Glock may have violated consumer protection laws by knowingly promoting customizable firearms with dangerous consequences.
The court further rejected Glock’s First Amendment defense, ruling that false or deceptive commercial advertising is not protected speech. Likewise, the Second Amendment, Sande wrote, covers the right to own and bear arms—not the unrestricted right of corporations to sell them.
A Landmark Fight Against Gun Violence
The decision allows Minnesota’s sweeping claims—including public nuisance, negligence, products liability, and deceptive trade practices—to move forward.
“This is a major victory in the fight against gun violence,” said former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, who survived a 2011 mass shooting. Her Giffords Law Center is aiding Minnesota’s legal team.
“This ruling makes it clear: gun companies don’t have a free pass to endanger communities. When they cross the line, they will be held accountable,” she said.
