Skip to Main Content
sample single Alt

State of Minnesota v. Glock, Inc., u0026amp; Glock Ges.m.b.H.

Holding firearm manufacturers accountable for enabling the spread of dangerous devices known as “Glock switches” that convert legal handguns into illegal machine guns.

    Last updated .

    Glock switches are showing up on the streets of Minnesota and in cities across the country. We’re suing Glock for encouraging this.

    u003cpu003eGIFFORDS Law Center, u003ca href=u0022https://giffords.org/press-release/2024/12/ag-ellison-sues-glock-for-handguns-that-can-easily-be-turned-into-machine-guns/u0022u003ealongside Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellisonu003c/au003e and the Minnesota Law Gun Violence Prevention Clinic, represents the State of Minnesota in a lawsuit against American gun manufacturer Glock, Inc., and its foreign parent company, Glock Ges. m.b.H., for their role in the proliferation of dangerous Glock switches, u003ca href=u0022https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/auto-sears/u0022u003ealso known as auto searsu003c/au003e, that allow any person to easily convert a semiautomatic handgun into an illegal fully automatic weapon.u003cbru003eu003c/pu003eu003cpu003eThese conversion devices are frequently called “Glock switches” because of their pervasive use on Glock pistols. Glock semiautomatic handguns have a distinct design that makes them uniquely easy to convert to u003cemu003efully automatic machine gunsu003c/emu003e with a Glock switch. Glock has made no effort to address this issue and even encourages conversion of its handguns by promoting Glock’s fully automatic machine guns as “fun” and “exciting.”u003c/pu003eu003cpu003eu003c/pu003e

    MEDIA REQUESTS

    Our experts can speak to the full spectrum of gun violence prevention issues. Have a question? Email us at media@giffords.org.

    Contact

    Glock switches are designed to be easy to install. The device prevents a firearm’s trigger bar from reengaging after a single shot, allowing any firearm equipped with a switch to fire continuously with a single trigger pull, thereby creating a machine gun. 

    In just seconds, and for as little as $10, an amateur can use a Glock switch no bigger than the size of a LEGO to transform a semiautomatic handgun into an illegal fully automatic weapon.

    Illustration of a semiautomatic Glock handgun equipped with a switch before the trigger pull (left); following the trigger pull, as the striker and slide move backward with recoil (middle); and as the next bullet fires as the Glock switch holds down the trigger bar (right).u003cbru003e

    Although machine guns remain generally outlawed under Minnesota and federal law, Glock switches have flooded the streets of Minnesota, as well as many other US cities, resulting in an increase in gun violence involving deadly fully automatic machine guns.

    Between 2017 and 2021, the ATF reported a 570% increase in the recovery of Glock switches and other conversion devices compared to the previous five years. In 2023, the Minneapolis Police Department recovered three times as many Glock switches than in 2021, the first year it began tracking these devices. As a result, incidents of machine gun fire in Minneapolis surged significantly from 2020 to 2022, even as the number of firearm shootings declined. 

    Glock’s design, manufacture, and sale of semiautomatic handguns that are easily converted into illegal machine guns, coupled with Glock’s refusal to fix this known hazard actively harms civilians, puts communities at greater risk of gun violence, and violates Minnesota law.

    THE COMPLAINT

    u003cpu003eu003c/pu003eu003cpu003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024.12.12-COMPLAINT-MN-v.-Glock.pdfu0022u003eOur complaintu003c/au003e alleges that Glock knowingly and intentionally makes and sells semiautomatic handguns that can be easily converted into illegal fully automatic weapons with Glock switches, and, further, that Glock has refused to modify its handgun design to prevent the use of these dangerous switches.u003c/pu003eu003cpu003eNot only has Glock failed to act in order to deter civilians from easily modifying their guns into fully automatic machine guns, but we also allege that Glock has actively promoted and encouraged the conversion of their handguns on their very own website and social media pages—misleading consumers on the legality of modifying their handguns to fully automatic fire and putting lives at risk.u003c/pu003e

    Our complaint features the stories of several innocent Minnesotans who were injured or killed by semiautomatic Glock handguns equipped with Glock switches. On May 22, 2021, a college senior named CJ was killed the night before his graduation outside the Monarch nightclub in Minneapolis during a confrontation between two people carrying Glock handguns modified with a Glock switch, resulting in a spray of bullets that hit CJ and seven other bystanders as they attempted to flee. And on August 11, 2023, a Minneapolis police officer was shot by a .40 caliber Glock handgun equipped with a Glock switch and an extended magazine while investigating a robbery.

    A Glock social media post promoting converting their handguns to fully automatic weapons.

    On behalf of the people and state of Minnesota, the Minnesota Attorney General is seeking compensation to remedy the harms Minnesotans have suffered as a direct result of Glock, Inc., and Glock Ges.m.b.H.’s deceptive and unlawful conduct, as well as injunctive relief, including requiring Glock to modify the design of its semiautomatic handguns in a manner that prevents them from being easily converted into fully automatic machine guns.

    GIFFORDS Law Center is bringing this suit alongside Attorney General Ellison to put an end to Glock’s illegal and harmful conduct and keep Minnesota communities safe from the scourge of illegal machine guns.

    The case was filed on December 12, 2024, in the Hennepin County District Court (Case No. 27-CV-24-18827) and named as defendants American gun manufacturer, Glock, Inc., and its Austrian parent company, Glock Ges.m.b.H.

    KEY FILINGS

    u003cemu003eu003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dark-blue-coloru0022u003eState of Minnesota v. Glock, Inc. u0026amp; Glou003c/marku003eck Ges.m.b.H.u003cbru003eu003c/emu003eu003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dark-blue-coloru0022u003eCase No. 27-CV-24-18827 (Hennepin Co. D. Ct., Minnu003c/marku003eesotau003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dark-blue-coloru0022u003e)u003c/marku003e
    Date Filed
    Key Filing
    12/12/2024
    u003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024.12.12-COMPLAINT-MN-v.-Glock.pdfu0022u003eu003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dusk-blue-coloru0022u003eu003cstrongu003eComplaintu003c/strongu003eu003c/marku003eu003c/au003e
    2/20/2025
    u003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dusk-blue-coloru0022u003eu003cstrongu003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Doc.-28-Glock-Memo-ISO-MOTION-to-Stay-All-Discovery-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-18827-2025-02-20.pdfu0022u003eGlock Inc.’s Motion to Stay All Discoveryu003c/au003eu003cbru003eu003c/strongu003eu003c/marku003eGlock, Inc. moved to suspend the discovery process in this case until 30 days after the Court rules on their Motion to Dismiss the case.
    2/28/2025
    u003cstrongu003eu003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dusk-blue-coloru0022u003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Doc.-54-STATE-OF-MINNESOTA-MEMO-in-Opp-to-Glocks-MOTION-to-Stay-Discovery.pdfu0022u003eState of Minnesota’s Opposition to GLOCK, Inc.’s Motion to Stay All Discoveryu003c/au003eu003c/marku003eu003cbru003eu003c/strongu003eWe responded opposing Glock, Inc.’s motion to suspend the discovery process in this case.
    3/5/2025
    u003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Doc.-56-GLOCK-Reply-MEMO-ISO-MOTION-to-Stay-Discovery-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-18827-2025-03-05.pdfu0022u003eu003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dusk-blue-coloru0022u003eu003cstrongu003eGlock Inc.’s Reply to Opposition to its Motion to Stay All Discoveryu003c/strongu003eu003c/marku003eu003cbru003eu003c/au003eGlock, Inc. responded to our brief opposing their motion to suspend the discovery process in this case.
    3/20/2025
    u003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dusk-blue-coloru0022u003eu003cstrongu003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Doc.-63-GLOCK-Motion-to-Dismiss-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-18827-2025-03-20.pdfu0022u003eGlock Inc.’s Motion to Dismissu003c/au003eu003c/strongu003eu003c/marku003eu003cbru003eGlock, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the case.
    4/2/2025
    u003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dusk-blue-coloru0022u003eu003cstrongu003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Doc.-65-GLOCK-GES.m.b.H.-Memo-ISO-MTD-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-18827-2025-04-02.pdfu0022u003eGlock Ges.m.b.H.’s Motion to Dismissu003c/au003eu003c/strongu003eu003c/marku003eu003cbru003eGlock Ges.m.b.H. filed a motion to dismiss the case, joining and adopting many of the arguments made by Glock, Inc. in support of its motion to dismiss.
    4/23/2025
    u003cstrongu003eu003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dusk-blue-coloru0022u003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Doc.-72-MN-MEMO-in-Opp-to-Glock-MTD-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-18827-2025-04-23.pdfu0022u003eState of Minnesota’s Opposition to Both Glock Defendants’ Motions to Dismissu003c/au003eu003c/marku003eu003cbru003eu003c/strongu003eWe responded opposing Glock, Inc. and Glock Ges.m.b.H.’s motions to dismiss the case.
    5/14/2025
    u003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dusk-blue-coloru0022u003eu003cstrongu003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Doc.-74-GLOCK-Reply-ISO-MTD-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-188272025-05-14.pdfu0022u003eBoth Glock Defendants’ Reply to Opposition to their Motions to Dismissu003c/au003eu003c/strongu003eu003c/marku003eu003cbru003eGlock, Inc. and Glock Ges.m.b.H. jointly responded to our brief opposing their motions to dismiss the case.
    6/2/2025
    u003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Doc.-76-ORDER-Granting-Glock-Inc.-MTN-to-Stay-All-Discovery-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-188272025-06-02.pdfu0022u003eu003cstrongu003eOrder Granting Motion to Stay All Discoveryu003c/strongu003eu003c/au003eu003cbru003eThe Court granted Glock, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Discovery in the case while the court considers the Motions to Dismiss.
    6/20/2025
    u003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dusk-blue-coloru0022u003eu003cstrongu003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Doc.-78-GLOCK-Defs-Mexico-v.-SW-Brief-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-188272025-06-20.pdfu0022u003eBoth Glock Defendants’ Brief Addressing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in u003cemu003eSmith u0026amp; Wesson Brands, Inc. v. u003c/emu003eu003c/au003eu003c/strongu003eu003c/marku003eu003cfont color=u0022#28509cu0022u003eu003cspan style=u0022caret-color: rgb(40, 80, 156);u0022u003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Doc.-78-GLOCK-Defs-Mexico-v.-SW-Brief-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-188272025-06-20.pdfu0022u003eu003cbu003eu003ciu003eEstadosu003c/iu003eu003c/bu003eu003c/au003eu003c/spanu003eu003c/fontu003eu003cstrongu003eu003cemu003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Doc.-78-GLOCK-Defs-Mexico-v.-SW-Brief-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-188272025-06-20.pdfu0022u003eu003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dusk-blue-coloru0022u003e Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-1141u003c/marku003eu003c/au003eu003c/emu003eu003c/strongu003eu003cbru003eGlock, Inc. and Glock Ges.m.b.H. jointly filed a brief to the court arguing the implications of the decision in this case.
    6/20/2025
    u003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dusk-blue-coloru0022u003eu003cstrongu003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Doc.-79-MN-Mexico-v.-SW-Brief-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-188272025-06-20.pdfu0022u003eState of Minnesota’s Brief Addressing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in u003cemu003eSmith u0026amp; Wesson Brands, Inc. v. u003c/emu003eu003c/au003eu003c/strongu003eu003c/marku003eu003cfont color=u0022#28509cu0022u003eu003cspan style=u0022caret-color: rgb(40, 80, 156);u0022u003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Doc.-79-MN-Mexico-v.-SW-Brief-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-188272025-06-20.pdfu0022u003eu003cbu003eu003ciu003eEstadosu003c/iu003eu003c/bu003eu003c/au003eu003c/spanu003eu003c/fontu003eu003cstrongu003eu003cemu003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Doc.-79-MN-Mexico-v.-SW-Brief-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-188272025-06-20.pdfu0022u003eu003cmark style=u0022background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)u0022 class=u0022has-inline-color has-dusk-blue-coloru0022u003e Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-1141u003c/marku003eu003c/au003eu003c/emu003eu003c/strongu003eu003cbru003eWe filed a brief to the court asserting that the decision does not affect this case.
    8/21/2025
    u003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Doc.-81-ORDER-Denying-Glock-MTD-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-188272025-08-21pdf.pdfu0022u003eu003cstrongu003eOrder Denying Glock Defendants’ Motions to Dismissu003c/strongu003eu003c/au003eu003cbru003eThe Court denied Glock, Inc. and Glock Ges.m.b.H.’s motions to dismiss the case.
    4/8/2026
    u003cstrongu003eu003ca href=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Doc.-134-MN-Supplemental-Complaint-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-188272026-04-08.pdfu0022 type=u0022linku0022 id=u0022https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Doc.-134-MN-Supplemental-Complaint-MN-v.-Glock-Hennepin-Co.-D.-Ct.-Minn.-27-CV-24-188272026-04-08.pdfu0022u003eSupplemental Complaintu003c/au003eu003c/strongu003eu003cbru003eWe amended our complaint to add new factual allegations that address the release of new Glock handgun models that continue to be susceptible to machine gun conversion devices.

    For press inquiries or questions about this lawsuit, please email our press team at media@giffords.org.

    MAKE A GIFT

    Every day, the experts at Giffords Law Center work tirelessly to craft, enact, and defend the gun safety policies and programs that save lives. A safer America is within reach, but we need your courage and commitment to get there.