Semiautomatic pistols produced by the Austrian gun manufacturer Glock G.m.b.H. dominate the handgun market in the United States. Pull up lists of the ten most popular handguns, and Glock variants will likely occupy at least half the spots on any of them. It comes as no surprise, then, that the anti-gun lobby would want to go after the company. In the latest example of anti-Second Amendment lawfare, the city of Chicago and Everytown Law are suing Glock over the alleged ease with which its pistols can be modified to function as fully automatic.
The complaint asserts that it is “too easy” to modify a Glock so that it has fully automatic capability. This is done by installing an auto sear, more commonly known as a “Glock switch.” The pistol becomes, in effect, a “machine gun,” firing continuously for as long as the trigger is depressed – or until the magazine is empty.
Semiautomatic vs Fully Automatic
An adept shooter can accurately fire multiple rounds from a semiautomatic handgun in a couple of seconds. The technique is simple to master and, while the rate of fire even from a highly trained shooter would not match that of a fully automatic weapon, a whole magazine of ammunition can be accurately laid down on a target in extremely rapid fashion. Even in combat situations, full-auto has limited practical use – which is why modern military-grade rifles have levers enabling the operator to switch among single shot, three-round burst, and continuous fire, the last used only in situations where the goal is simply to suppress enemy fire – to make them keep their heads down, so to speak.
Unless one has incredible strength, the accuracy of fully automatic fire degrades very quickly after the first three or four rounds due to the rapid recoil that makes the weapon “jump.” Even the most highly trained warrior could not fire off a 30-round magazine from a rifle in full-auto mode without several of those rounds missing the intended target. Thus, fully automatic weapons are, in reality, no more dangerous than semiautomatics in most situations.
All this is to say that the ability to modify pistols represents no serious threat to the general population. Few if any law-abiding American gun owners want or need a fully automatic handgun because it really has no practical use when a semiautomatic allows for sufficient speed and accuracy. Should they be allowed to own one anyway? Second Amendment advocates would say yes – whether such a weapon is “needed” or practical is entirely irrelevant.
Quite apart from the obvious question of why most Americans cannot legally own fully automatic firearms, the lawsuit is an exercise in frivolity. Although the complaint cites the number of modified Glocks recovered from crime scenes in Chicago, it is entirely fair to point out a couple of truths. Few of the millions of Glock owners are aware of the “Glock switch.” Most of them probably wouldn’t know how to modify their pistols for fully automatic firing, and even if they did, not many well-trained gun owners would think it necessary. With the right tools and know-how, one can modify any semiautomatic pistol or rifle to give it fully automatic capability.
Then, of course, there is the fact that anyone determined to acquire a Glock and convert it to an automatic weapon is going to do so, whether it is legal or not. Chicago, for all its restrictions on the purchase and carrying of guns, continues to endure its very own epidemic of gun violence. Over 400 people have been shot in the city so far in 2024 – barely one-quarter of the way through the year. More than 80 have been shot and killed.
Between Feb. 19 and March 19 of this year, the Windy City has seen just three days in which fewer than three people were shot and only six days on which there were no homicides. Chicago doesn’t have a gun problem; it has a law and order problem and very serious social problems. The city’s leaders point fingers at gun manufacturers to deflect from their inability – or perhaps even unwillingness – to solve the problems they were elected to solve.
It’s Not Just About Glock
Of course, that the overwhelming majority of Glock owners either don’t know how to install a switch or wouldn’t want to is not a legally sound defense and has no real bearing on this case. The point, however, is that the residents of the state of Illinois face a further infringement of their Second Amendment rights because a criminal element – the very people who do not abide by gun laws anyway – has chosen to take advantage of a modification. This is the bump stock issue all over again — but with much more serious potential consequences.
The bigger picture is that Everytown Law likely sees this as a test case. If it can ban Glock pistols for being too easy to modify, then it is a very small step to banning all semiautomatic weapons. The complaint is crafted to allow almost endless expansion of the plaintiffs’ argument. In a nutshell, the suit seems designed to set up the narrative that all semiautomatic weapons (not just Glocks) are simply too dangerous because they can be modified for continuous fire.
The campaign against the private ownership of semiautomatic weapons has kicked into high gear since Joe Biden came to the White House. He is on record saying, in November 2022, “the idea we still allow semiautomatic weapons to be purchased is sick.” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s lawsuit against Glock, supported by Everytown, is just another angle of this campaign – a backdoor attempt to create a justification for banning firearms altogether.
At this point, it is almost amusing to hear anti-gunners proclaim, “No one wants to take your guns.” After all, that seems to be exactly what a case like this is designed to do.
