Gun owners urge court to certify Glock defect class action

(Dec. 15, 2020)

Glock guns reportedly suffer a defect which cause the firearms to become dangerous and unfit for use, according to a recent class action lawsuit.

Plaintiff Steven Johnson says that his .45 caliber Glock handgun was manufactured with a defect that makes the gun “unreasonably dangerous.” Johnson says that he and other consumers would not have purchased Glock handguns if they were properly informed that the guns were defective. As a result, Glock gun purchasers have allegedly sustained financial injuries.

“In filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff and the Class do not disparage the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Rather, Plaintiff and the Class seek to hold accountable the Glock Defendants for the design, manufacture, assembly, marketing, supply, warranty, distribution, misrepresentation, and sale of the Class Guns which are defective and unreasonably dangerous as described herein,” Johnson notes in his Glock defect class action lawsuit.

“Instead of impinging upon the Second Amendment, this lawsuit is brought by and to protect individuals who have lawfully exercised their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

Consumers like Johnson allegedly purchased Glock handguns after relying on the years of good reputation associated with Glock guns and the manufacturer’s representations of “Glock Perfection.” Unfortunately, these customers may be surprised to find their guns may be defective.

The Glock gun defect reportedly stems from the feed ramp in the handguns. A feed ramp is the part of a gun which directs a fresh cartridge into firing position during reloading. Unfortunately, the feed ramp in some Glock handguns is allegedly too long and leads to a lack of chamber support for the round or casing.

Johnson says that this defect forces a fired round to “exert unreasonable pressures” on the round or casing. As a result of this pressure, the round can reportedly separate and lodge a piece of the casing in the six o’clock position – leading to a “blow out” or “kaboom.”

The Glock class action lawsuit contends that this defect can lead to personal injury and property damage for unsuspecting consumers. Johnson says that individuals have been seriously injured as a result of the defect. In fact, the plaintiff maintains that “it is only a matter of time before more individuals are seriously injured or killed.”

Despite the serious risk of injury, Glock Inc. has allegedly failed to warn their customers about the dangerous defect found in some of their handguns. As a result, Glock purchasers like Johnson have reportedly been using their guns unaware that they could sustain serious injuries. Johnson contends that the company has violated California law by failing to warn the public, failing to recall the guns, and continuing to represent that their guns are safe.

“The allegations in this Complaint are well-supported by the troublesome history of the Class Guns, the harmful, sometimes life-threatening, consequences of their use by consumers, as well as the Glock Defendants’ continuing denial or failure to acknowledge the Unsupported Chamber Defect,” the Glock defect class action lawsuit maintains.

“These critical facts about the Class Guns and the Defect have been hidden from the public by the Glock Defendants’ pattern of concealing the Defect and refusing to warn the public despite the Glock Defendants’ knowledge of the Defect.”

Johnson seeks to represent a Class of Glock gun purchasers in California. Class guns include the following models and series: Model 22, 22 Gen 4, 23, 23 Gen 4, 24, 27, 27 Gen 4, 35, 35 Gen 4, 35 Gen 4 MOS, 22 cut, 22 P, 23 cut, 23 P, 21 Gen 4, 21 SF, 30 Gen 4,.30s, 30 SF, 36, 41 Gen 4, 41 Gen 4 MOS, 37, 38, 39, 20 Gen 4, 20 SF, 29 Gen 4, 29 SF, 40 Gen 4 MOS, and all gun models with a similar chamber design and feed ramp length. Thousands of affected guns were reportedly sold to California consumers.

On behalf of himself and the proposed Class of California gun purchasers, Johnson seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, treble damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, interest, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Do you own a Glock? Have you experienced difficulties with your gun as a result of the alleged defect? Share your experiences in the comment section below.

Johnson and the proposed Class are represented by Craig M. Nicholas and Alex Tomasevic of Nicholas Tomasevic LLP; Robert K. Lewis and Christopher A. Treadway of Lewis Law Firm PLC; and Amy M. Pokora of Pokora Law PLC.

The Glock Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Steven C. Johnson v. Glock Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-08807, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.