Gun rights lawsuit dismissed as federal judge avoids interfering with Glock case in MD court

Listen to this article

A federal judge dismissed a gun-rights group’s lawsuit challenging a Maryland law, saying the same issues are addressed in a state-court case brought by the state and Baltimore City.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation in April sued Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown and his office over the 2024 Gun Industry Accountability Act, which extended tort liability to gun manufacturers.

The law prevented them “from knowingly creating, maintaining, or contributing to harm to the public through the sale, manufacture, importation or marketing of a firearm-related product under certain circumstances.”

The NSSF, which has thousands of members and is also known as the Firearm Industry Trade Association, argued the state law is preempted by a federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects firearms manufacturers from liability for the criminal misuse of their products.

The NSSF sued about two months after Maryland and Baltimore City sued the Austrian gun manufacturer Glock, alleging its pistols are easy to modify with a small device that allows users to fire 1,200 rounds per minute, faster than many fully automatic firearms used by the U.S. military.

That case, the first under the Gun Industry Accountability Act, is pending in Baltimore City Circuit Court. The court heard arguments last month on Glock’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay the proceedings; the judge has not yet ruled.

U.S. District Judge Robert Ballou, of the Western District of Virginia, was specially assigned to the NSSF case. He dismissed it on Oct. 21, writing that the Glock case “implicates important state interests and provides an adequate opportunity for NSSF to raise its constitutional challenges.”

Ballou cited a doctrine mandating federal courts abstain when they may interfere with state cases.

Ballou likely presided over the case due to a conflict of interest stemming from the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maryland’s federal judges and the court itself.

One of the firms representing the NSSF, Clement & Murphy, also represents Maryland’s federal judges. Maryland District Judge Richard Bennett recused himself in June. The case likely needed an out-of-state judge because all of Maryland’s federal judges are clients of Clement & Murphy.

This summer, a spokesman for the court declined to comment. The Maryland Office of the Attorney General and Clement & Murphy did not respond to requests for comment at the time. The NSSF was Clement & Murphy’s only client with an active case in Maryland federal court, according to a Daily Record search of the online courts database.

Spokespeople for the OAG, NSSF and Clement & Murphy did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. A lawyer for Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, which also represented the NSSF, declined to comment, deferring to Clement & Murphy.