(Article) | (Archive)
New Hampshire Public Radio | By Todd Bookman
Published May 28, 2025 at 4:28 PM EDTDan Tuohy
The new law has drawn pushback from people who've been injured from unintentional firings of their Sig Sauer pistols.
Back in April, in a nearly empty room at the New Hampshire State House, Bobby Cox, an executive with gunmaker Sig Sauer, had come with a request.He said his company, one of the biggest gun manufacturers in the country and a major employer on New Hampshire’s Seacoast, needed protection. Specifically, Sig Sauer wanted state lawmakers to shield it from a barrage of liability lawsuits that allege the company’s best-selling P320 pistol has an inherent safety defect.
“We want to bring this amendment to you to show what out-of-state plaintiffs’ attorneys are doing, attacking in-state businesses,” Cox told a Senate committee. “And we ask for your support and help.”
Over the past few years, Newington-based Sig Sauer has been sued dozens of times by gun owners who were shot by their own P320s, including police officers and federal agents, and who claim the gun’s design — and its lack of an external safety — make the company liable for injuries.
Sig Sauer has denied the weapons are unsafe and has been fighting the lawsuits in court. But over the past few weeks, the company has used its influence as one of the state’s largest manufacturers to change New Hampshire law to protect itself from future liability lawsuits. The measure Cox was advocating for swiftly cleared the Legislature, without any notice for public comment. Last week, Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed the bill — one day after it cleared its final vote — despite objections from some Democrats, as well as lawyers and injured plaintiffs who say the company should be forced to defend the claims in court. The speed with which the bill moved through the State House underscores both Sig Sauer’s desire to cut off future costly lawsuits, and the company’s sway in a Legislature run by a gun-friendly Republican Party.
“Sig Sauer should focus on changing the defective design of its P320,” said Robert Zimmerman, a Pennsylvania-based attorney who has filed dozens of cases against the company. “Instead, Sig Sauer is paying lobbyists to change New Hampshire law to deprive local, state and federal law enforcement officers and private gun owners from having their day in court and to hold Sig Sauer accountable for their serious injuries.”
‘It’s never the firearm’
Since its rollout in 2017, the P320 pistol has become one of the country’s most popular pistols, with more than 3.6 million guns sold. A version of the gun is now carried by soldiers across every branch of the U.S. military, and the P320 is a leading choice for local and state law enforcement agencies.
But in recent years, the civilian model of the gun has faced a steady stream of allegations over its trigger mechanism and its lack of an external safety as a standard feature. Dozens of people have filed lawsuits, claiming they suffered hip, leg or foot gunshot wounds after their P320s fired unexpectedly, often while holstered. Attorneys have called the gun the “most dangerous pistol” sold in the United States.
The lawsuits have alleged that the company is negligent for not including an external safety and for not warning consumers about the weapon’s alleged risks.
Sig Sauer has denied the allegations about the P320.
“It's never the firearm,” Cox, the Sig Sauer lobbyist, told New Hampshire lawmakers in April. He blamed the injuries on a lack of training, as well as the weapon snagging on holsters or other items getting caught in the trigger.
Judges and juries have handed down mixed verdicts in these lawsuits, and a proposed class action lawsuit was dismissed. But in the past year, two juries awarded multi-million dollar verdicts in favor of men injured by their P320.
In New Hampshire, there are at least 80 pending cases against Sig Sauer.
The new liability law, which prohibits lawsuits that focus on the gun’s lack of an external safety, won’t affect those cases. But it does shift the landscape for any future cases.
Late introduction limits public input
Critics of the bill point out that New Hampshire residents, including members of law enforcement, now have no avenue to seek financial compensation if they are injured by their P320.The bill also has national implications: plaintiffs attorneys have been filing cases in New Hampshire’s federal court — sometimes dozens at a time in groups — as a way to streamline the legal process.
Now, those attorneys could be forced to manage individual cases in courts all around the country, which comes with added costs and potential delays.
“It appears like you want to shut off an avenue for people to come to New Hampshire to get justice,” state Sen. Debra Altschiller, a Democrat, told Cox during the hearing in April.
Local backers of Sig Sauer, though, view these cases as unwarranted and an attack on a major local employer.
“Their home is New Hampshire,” Sen. Bill Gannon, the Republican lawmaker who introduced the Sig-friendly amendment, told colleagues. “They want to stay in New Hampshire, and they're asking us to help fight against false defective claims.”
By introducing the amendment late in the Senate session, Gannon avoided any public notice for a hearing. Such a hearing, attorneys say, would have provided a forum for people injured by their P320 to explain to lawmakers the risks they allege the gun carries.
“They're not going to have that opportunity now because it got railroaded through on a bullet train,” said Chuck Douglas, one of the local attorneys who has been involved in the liability cases.
Douglas said the state was wrong to side with the gunmaker over litigants. “You don't see this coming in with other handguns,” he said. “It's just the P320.”
