Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The following video by Matt Walsh commands your attention.  A new attack on the Second Amendment seems to be unfolding, this time with the “cooperation” of a foreign corporation.

Glock pistols are perhaps the most popular self-defense pistols on the market today.  While we personally prefer other designs, they are widely used by police forces and private citizens.  They are reliable, accurate, and reasonably priced.

As Matt Walsh notes, several progressive jurisdictions, such as Chicago and Minneapolis, and states like Maryland, have filed lawsuits against Glock because aftermarket “switches” can be installed to allow Glock pistols to fire fully auto.  Full auto means one trigger pull can empty the gun that may hold, depending on the model, up to 20 rounds of 9mm ammunition.

Using recent cases of criminals spraying each other with lead in gang-related shootings is the excuse they use.

The installation of these switches to modify a semi-automatic trigger mechanism is illegal.  Their use by criminals is unlawful.  Yet somehow, progressives blame the company.  The reason:  it is just another tool in the progressive tool bag to limit the ability of citizens to own firearms and protect themselves.  Their goal has always been to disarm the US citizen so that we can be like England or Canada.

What other brands can perhaps be modified?

Why should Glock be blamed because a career criminal was let out early, and illegally tampered with Glock trigger designs to alter the weapon?  Because in the US, the legal process is the punishment.  Liberal lawyers working for government entities can launch a fusilade of lawsuits that can exhaust a private company in court.  Management then decides to cave in or incur the expense of endless court battles.  We get it.  But caving in encourages those who want to interfere with the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

An essential part of the Conservative agenda was tort reform.  We don’t hear much about that today, and maybe we should.

Moreover, there has been a tendency for foreign corporations to own US firearms brands, and those foreigners may not have the reverence for the Second Amendment that a US citizen might have.  Would these foreign companies, which own household brands like Colt, Dan Wesson, Taurus, Rock Island, Remington, and Browning, be more compliant with liberal demands?

Glock is a private company domiciled in Austria. Founded in 1963 by Gaston Glock, the company remained in his control until his recent death in 2023.  Control then went to his widow, Kathrin.  Glock himself had supported conservative political causes in Austria.  His widow’s politics are largely unknown, aside from her being a strong supporter of animal rights.

Likely, the company did not decide to cancel all its previous models and launch new ones to make a political statement.  They wanted to make it more difficult for criminals to modify their product, hoping it would protect them from frivolous litigation. But there is no guarantee that criminal innovation might ruin their plan. 

But their capitulation creates a precedent, and that is worrisome.  Their calculus shows Democrats can bully major companies.

We would prefer to see companies fight for our rights rather than comply with ridiculous lawsuits, but we sympathize with the calculus.  While Glock will still be making a complete line of newly designed firearms, they demonstrated that lawsuits can threaten whole product lines. These lawsuits were without merit, and they proved to Democrats that false claims and court battles could shape the industry.

Besides fighting both the political and legal battles to stop Democrats from harassing companies that make guns and ammunition, what more can we do?  Support the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and the NRA, and don’t vote for Democrats at any level of government.

As painful as it might be, perhaps not buying Glocks will be necessary.  How else can we send the message that management that caves to liberal demands will be punished?  We instead send the message that we will even pay higher prices if necessary to help companies defend themselves—and us—in court.  If you don’t protect our rights, we will buy from someone else.

In this case, there are plenty of fine polymer striker-fired pistols made by competing firms to choose from.  In fact, the new Ruger RXM—a Glock-like pistol that combines the talents of both Ruger and Magpul—is getting rave reviews.  It is made in Prescott, Arizona.

Gun owners have to be active in politics and must be generous in their contributions to organizations that fight the legal battles to preserve our Constitutional rights.  We also expect the companies we support with our consumer dollars to fight with us.

We don’t want to punish Glock, but don’t we have to send a message that, when it comes to our Constitutional rights, we prefer companies that fight rather than those that settle?