Last month, New Hampshire lawmakers enacted a law designed to shield gun makers and dealers from “any product liability” lawsuit accusing them of selling defective products, negligence, or “any other claim based on the absence” of certain safety features that help prevent unintentional discharges. The law was written to protect New-Hampshire-based gun maker Sig Sauer, which has been the subject of numerous lawsuits alleging that P320 pistols can fire without an intentional trigger pull.
Appearing before the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee in April, Sig Sauer representative Bobby Cox (who also serves as a South Carolina state representative) said the company had “seen a rash of lawsuits…brought by plaintiff tort attorneys and representing both private citizens and law enforcement officers from states claiming that our flagship pistol, the P320 that’s made here in New Hampshire, is defective because it does not have an optional external safety.”1New Hampshire Senate Livestream, “Senate Judiciary (04/10/2025),” YouTube, April 10, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ew3rAwV7Ik, at 56:54.
Cox said that “without these proposed changes to the law, plaintiff’s lawyers will continue to come here…where they can litigate these cases and claim that these [pistols without safeties] are defective.” He noted that 77 lawsuits had been filed against Sig Sauer in New Hampshire, but none had been filed by in-state residents.2Ibid, at 58:02. “Every single court case we have to fight takes away money from Granite State residents and workers that we employ,” Cox said.3Ibid, at 1:01:18.
lacking safety features
As written, the new law explicitly states that gun makers cannot be sued for products lacking magazine disconnects, which prevent guns from firing if their magazines have been removed; loaded-chamber indicators that notify gun owners if a round is chambered; smart technology that ensures a gun can only be operated by authorized users; or an “external mechanical safety” like the “tabbed trigger safety” found on Glock-style pistols.
While Sig Sauer offers some P320 models with external thumb safeties, most versions feature no external safeties whatsoever.
During that April committee hearing, the bill’s sponsor, New Hampshire State Senator Bill Gannon, sat alongside Cox and argued that the plaintiffs in P320 lawsuits are relying on a “new concept” in tort law. “The tort theory is not that there’s any real defect with the gun but the fact that it’s missing things,” he said.4Ibid, at 53:55.
An expert witness in a P320 lawsuit in Georgia that resulted in a $2.35 million verdict for the plaintiff said that the absence of a tabbed trigger makes the P320 more susceptible to firing without an intentional trigger pull.
But Gannon dismissed that argument during his testimony, claiming that the missing safety features aren’t always desired by gun owners: “I’d like my wife to be able to use the gun if she wakes up at night and saw there’s an intruder in the house. I would not want a finger safety thing,” referring to a tabbed trigger, which deactivates as soon as someone places their finger on the trigger. He also said that he’d like his wife to be able to fire “one round in the chamber if she doesn’t put the [magazine] in safely.”5Ibid, at 1:17:07.
protecting sig sauer
Gannon acknowledged that the bill would help Sig Sauer, which he said employed between 5,000 and 6,000 people in the state — though the company says that it employs “over 3,200 people” across three states. Gannon said, “I would hate to see this employer say, ‘Jeez, we’re gonna clear up shop because you guys are looking to get us.’ So I would like them to stay in New Hampshire. I would like them to see us as a welcoming community.”6Ibid, at 1:30:42.
Another lawmaker questioned the need for the bill because “Sig Sauer made $31 million in 2021. So I’m struggling to see how you are not able to meet your needs for these lawsuits.”7Ibid, at 1:08:15.
When asked if the state should require safety features on handguns, Cox responded, “What’s safe enough? We put one safety on it, and then the plaintiff’s attorneys will be like, ‘You need two safeties. Oh, you need DNA recognition.’ So where do you stop?”8Ibid, at 1:05:55.
WHO’S LOOKING OUT FOR GUN OWNERS?
According to the Associated Press, since the law was enacted on May 23, Sig Sauer has already asked a federal court to dismiss one case because of the law “or break up and transfer the claims of 22 plaintiffs to court districts where they live.”
Gun makers already enjoy special legal protections on the federal level, and unlike most other products, guns are explicitly exempt from oversight by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the agency responsible for issuing recalls and regulating product safety. Instead, the firearms industry largely self-regulates, leaving gun owners with few options if something goes wrong.