Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
Second Amendment advocate Colion Noir has come out swinging against a recent lawsuit targeting Glock, calling it a dangerous and absurd attack on gun rights.
Survivors of the 2022 Brooklyn subway attack filed suit against Glock—not because of a malfunction or illegal sale—but simply because Glock advertises its pistols as compact and concealable.
Noir highlighted the absurdity, stating directly: “That’s like suing Ferrari because their cars go too fast.” He explained the lawsuit as a symptom of a culture that “would rather blame the tool than the person pulling the trigger.”
The lawsuit specifically claims Glock intentionally markets guns as easy to conceal, supposedly making them more likely to be used in crimes.
Noir responded sarcastically, emphasizing the irony that the Glock 17—the model cited in the lawsuit—isn’t even particularly compact or easy to conceal compared to other pistols.
Noir noted, “I don’t even like the Glock 17,” precisely because it’s not very concealable.
Drawing a direct comparison, Noir mocked the logic behind the lawsuit, remarking, “It’s like suing Toyota for DUIs because they sell a ton of Camrys.”
He firmly placed responsibility on Frank James—the criminal who carried out the attack—not on Glock or its marketing strategy.
SEE ALSO: Chicago Expands Lawsuit Against Glock
Noir also warned of a deeper issue in New York’s legal approach. Under a controversial law signed by former Governor Cuomo in 2021, gun manufacturers can now be sued for creating a “public nuisance,” a tactic Noir described as intentional legal warfare.
He pointed out an alarming legal paradox: “Did you know the Supreme Court has already ruled that the police aren’t even legally required to protect you?” referencing the landmark 2005 Supreme Court case, Castle Rock v. Gonzalez.
“This lawsuit isn’t about justice or public safety,” Noir explained. “It’s about bankrupting the gun industry one lawsuit at a time.”
He emphasized the troubling implications of circumventing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) by targeting marketing and product design, a strategy aimed at dismantling the Second Amendment by exhausting gun companies financially.
SEE ALSO: Vortex Pro Rifle Clamp: Tripod Mount Review
Noir further stressed the absurdity of targeting Glock specifically for designing guns to be concealable. “They’re suing Glock for doing exactly what the gun is supposed to do,” Noir said plainly.
Concealability isn’t a flaw—it’s precisely why law enforcement agencies worldwide trust Glock, and why millions of Americans carry these pistols for personal protection.
Highlighting the slippery slope of such lawsuits, Noir asked rhetorically, “What’s next, suing a knife company because the blade is sharp, suing a ladder company because it’s tall enough to fall off of?”
Noir concluded by underscoring the seriousness behind this legal assault: it’s not about saving lives or seeking justice. It’s about systematically undermining the constitutional right to bear arms.
“This isn’t just nonsense dressed up in legalese,” Noir warned. “It’s a weapon used to dismantle your rights one lawsuit at a time.”
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
Thank God I live presently in the State of Texas where I can conceal carry my S&W Shield, which is damn near invisible, anyplace, anywhere anytime, openly or otherwise, which I will not do, but I will carry concealed everywhere I go, even down to the mailbox, which is indoors!
Those that don’t like guns, don’t want to protect themselves, or their love ones, that’s their choice, but don’t dare try to tell me that I can’t do so, cause we’re gonna have a real problem!
When no police use Glocks, perhaps a lawsuit could be brought. As long as the government endorses Glock’s value by buying them for their law enforcement officers, there is no basis to sue Glock. The government has already endorsed the value.
If they are going to pass lawfare tied laws in their states, we need to do the same in red states. They tailored it towards guns, so lets tailor it too. Have a law that you can sue anyone who is attempting to abridge 2A rights through lobbying, legal effort or donations either direct or indirect. So if someone sues Glock in NYC, since this is seeking to abridge the 2A rights of people to buy guns by making it too expensive to operate in the US, we can sue every organization that is supporting it for as much money as they are suing the company for including legal fees and punative damages. Take enough of Soros and Bloomberg’s money and maybe you can stop them. That’s their tactic with gun companies.
What is the permit or license a person has to get to be able to legally carry a firearm in most states? It’s called a CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT/LICENSE. CONCEALED being the operative word. In many states, if the firearm is NOT concealed, the permit holder is in violation of the law and could be arrested. The point is and, in my opinion, the better argument is, in many states the law requires the firearm to be concealed. So, why wouldn’t a company manufacture and advertise their firearm in a manner than demonstrates it complies with the law? With that logic it shouldn’t take more than about 30 seconds for this lawsuit to be thrown out. As a lawyer Colion, I would have expected you to think of that and not some lame car comparison. You disappoint me sir.
well we will just have to carry sbr’s or msr’s then
Interestingly enough, handguns are defined in the California Penal Code as concealable firearms. so if the theory of plaintiffs in this case takes root and isn’t slapped down hard, the outcome would be to ban all handguns…..And we already know that the US Supreme Court isn’t going to go for that.
I wish I could agree with you that the Supreme court isn’t going to be for that, but Roberts and ACB are compromised. The wording of Rahimi and the number of cases Roberts takes shows just how awful they are. You can drive a truck through that and the 80% lowers kits decisions.
“To Protect and Serve” was coined in the 1950’s by the LAPD but was quantified in 1981 under the case of Warren v. District of Columbia, where the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general “public duty,” but that “no specific legal duty exists” to provide personal protection unless there are special circumstance. Those special circumstances might be a criminal being protected while in police custody. Of course, in county jail all bets are off on being protected while in custody of the Sheriff’s Department.
Not sure why Castle Rock v. Gonzales is considered a “landmark case.” Are the DC Courts NOT part of US jurisprudence?
Sure it is a part of the jurisprudence, but it is only binding in the D.C. Circuit and not on the other circuits. But Castle Rock is a decision of the US. Supreme Court, and therefore binding on all other courts in the nation. So that’s why he cited it, and it is indeed a “landmark” case. You are aware that he is a licensed attorney, right?
I do now recall that Noir was a lawyer who was not initially strong on the 2A early in his career, but I was NOT really thinking about all that at the time.
I’m NOT a lawyer and worded my response to reflect that fact particularly regarding the DC Circuit Courts. So, my untrained understanding of a landmark case is a court decision that formulates a new legal concept which seemed to happen in DC with the Warren decision in 1981. I know that lower courts can establish landmark cases where the USSC is NOT involved but this was NOT really a new legal concept in 2005.
I guess that the USSC must not have reflected on the Warren Case and the USSC was not upholding that decision. Still, every case before the USSC cannot be considered a landmark case, right? So, one of the factors I was questioning was how the courts were deciding Police obligations before Castlerock particularly if Warren (1981) was somehow limited by the DC Circuit Court jurisdiction.