1 For The Good Guys: Glock Wins Important PLCAA Court Case

In March of this year, a Federal Judge dismissed a liability suit against the well-known firearm manufacturer Glock. The ruling is good news for gun owners and manufacturers and a gut punch for the usual cast of gun-grabbers like President Biden.

joe biden glock plcaa case

Recall the president's April 8th, speech, in which he laid out his gun control agenda. In his anti-gun sermon, he made the following eloquent statement:

If I get one thing on my list, the Lord came down and said ‘Joe, you get one of these,’ give me that one. Because I tell you what: There would be a come to the Lord moment these folks would have real quickly.

Joe Biden addressed his desire to repeal the (PLCAA) Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA is the law at the center of the case mentioned above.

Glock logo

What is The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

In 2005, the United States Congress passed the law, with a 65-31 and 283-144 vote in the Senate and House.  Before the legislation, local governments and individuals could file civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers. In essence, the law protected gun manufacturers from individuals and municipalities who filed claims against companies for producing firearms used in crimes or negligently.

It is important to note that the law never protected the companies outright, meaning entities could still sue them for things such as breach of contract.

The Lawsuit and Ruling:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence brought the suit against Glock on behalf of a man who became paralyzed after being shot accidentally with a Glock handgun. President Donald Trump appointed Judge Susan Brnovich during his presidency, and she decided the case last March.

jusge rules in favor of glock plcaa

Here is the ruling:

A fair reading of the PLCAA shows that Congress intended the scope of its preemption to include claims like the plaintiff's. The PLCAA's plain text extends preemption to plaintiff's tort and products liability claims. Its unambiguous terms bar any civil cause of action, regardless of the underlying theory, when a plaintiff's injury results from ‘the criminal or unlawful misuse’ of the person or a third party, unless a specific exception applies

This ruling is encouraging; however, the anti-freedom politicians will continue to pursue their anti-gun dreams.

Since this post, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled on a PLCAA case involving the company Academy Sports and Outdoors. The case had to do with the firearm used in the Sutherland Springs mass killing event.

Stay up to date with legislation and gun industry news by subscribing to the Concealed Carry Podcast.

About Matthew Maruster

I follow my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who is the eternal co-equal Son of God. I currently live in Columbus, Ohio with my wife and daughter. I served in the Marine Corps Infantry. I was a Staff Sergeant and served as a Platoon Sergeant during combat in Iraq. After I was a police officer at a municipal agency in San Diego County. I have a Bachelors's Degree in Criminal Justice from National University. MJ Maruster Defense.


  1. Bill DeMedicis on May 19, 2021 at 3:46 pm

    Why do they want to sue gunmakers for the improper use of a tool? Then they might as well sue automobile manufacturers, baseball bat makers, knives, hammer manufacturers etc. for improper use.

  2. Art Darden on May 19, 2021 at 4:26 pm

    I’m glad Glock won the case I’m a proud owner of a glock 17 the gun isn’t dangerous it’s the handler that is careless that causes accidental discharges

  3. Art Darden on May 19, 2021 at 4:27 pm

    I’m glad Glock won the case I’m a proud owner of a glock 17 the gun isn’t dangerous it’s the careless handler

  4. Art Darden on May 19, 2021 at 4:27 pm

    I’m glad Glock won the case I’m a proud owner of a glock 17

  5. Bert on May 20, 2021 at 9:39 am

    The “Accidental Discharge” does not exist! There are three kinds of discharges on this planet, 1. Malfunction, 2. Intentional, 3 Negligent.

Leave a Comment