Lawsuit Claims GLOCK is Liable for 2022 NY Subway Shooting Because it Makes Too Many Pistols and Advertises That They’re Concealable

In April of 2022, 62-year-old Frank James put on a gas mask and set off smoke bomb in a New York City subway car as it travelled through Brooklyn. That caused the other passengers to run to the opposite end of the car. Once there, James opened fire on them with a 9mm handgun.

James wounded 10 passengers and more were injured in the chaos that resulted. All told, 29 people were hospitalized, but — miraculously — no one was killed.

In 2023, James pleaded guilty to committing a terrorist attack. As he said at the time . . .

“I alone am responsible for that attack,” James said in court. “They in no way deserved to have what happened to them.”

James, 64, said his actions were an attempt at “shining the light on certain conditions in the city where I was raised.” James’ attorney said his client did not receive the health care treatment he needed from the city.

He was sentenced to 10 life terms in prison.

Now, two of the people James wounded are suing GLOCK for manufacturing the pistol that James used on the train that day. You’re probably thinking, ‘Wait, what about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act? Doesn’t that protect firearms manufacturers from liability when their highly regulated, lawfully produces and sold products are later used by criminals?’

Well, yes. Ideally. That was certainly the intent of the law.

However, since what was left of Remington and the company’s insurers settled with plaintiffs after the Newtown shooting, plaintiffs attorneys have taken some different tacks against their targets, trying to get around that law. Attorneys in the Remington case claimed that that the company used allegedly questionable marketing practices that violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. They claimed the marketing of the Bushmaster gun used in the Sandy Hook shooting somehow promoted “unlawful military use of the rifles by civilians.”

The outcome of that case has prompted other similar “creative” lines of attack against other gun makers and retailers in recent years. Hence the lawsuit against GLOCK as a result of the New York Subway shooting.

The plaintiffs allege that GLOCK is liable because their marketing of the G17 pistol the subway shooter used emphasized its ability to be concealed, something that’s allegedly attractive to criminals and would be terrorists. The suit also alleges that GLOCK has made too many handguns. They claim that has resulted in more sales of used guns on the secondary market. How, exactly, that promotes criminal use isn’t really clear.

But wait, there’s more. They also criticize GLOCK for failing to remove the use of its brand name and product images from “song lyrics, movies, television series and video games.” We suppose the logic here is the use of GLOCK’s name and guns in popular culture somehow glamorizes their use in the eyes of criminals and other wackos.

Finally, while GLOCK is certainly one of the biggest, most successful names in the gun industry, the attorneys who wrote the complaint apparently think the company is far more powerful that, well, just about any other company in the world. They allege that GLOCK somehow manged to “successfully [bury] news articles, stories and documentaries that criticized or publicized Glock’s history and marketing.” Again, how this lead to James opening fire on a subway train is a mystery.

Here’s the relevant passage from the lawsuit . . .

Defendants, through their marketing practices in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of guns, including the subject Glock firearm, have contributed to creating and maintaining a public nuisance in the State of New York and have endangered the public health and safety in the following manner:

a. Marketing that emphasizes firearm characteristics such as their high capacity and ease of concealment, that appeal to prospective purchasers with criminal intent, including but not limited to through advertisement, product placement in movies and rap music;
b. Purposely supplying more firearms than the legitimate market could bear in order to induce sales in the secondary market;
c. Not training dealers to avoid straw sales and other illegal transactions; and
d. Refusing to terminate contracts with distributors who sold to dealers with disproportionately high volumes of guns traced to crime scenes.
e. Failing to have Glock removed from song lyrics, movies, television series and video games.
f. Failing to stop the glorification of Glock ownership and use through media and celebrity endorsements.
g. In successfully burying news articles, stories and documentaries that criticized or publicized Glock’s history and marketing

You can read the full complaint here.

We’d scoff at all of this and waive it away as a clear violation of the PLCAA. Something any court would look at and toss on summary judgement. But that may be too optimistic given the record of similar suits. Also, the plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Eastern District of New York. That hasn’t traditionally favorable venue gun rights and the general rule of law, particularly where firearms are involved. Stay tuned.