We reported recently how Sig Sauer’s popular P320 pistol has come under fire by some law enforcement agencies, military branches and even Gunsite Academy because of alleged safety problems. One such law enforcement group, the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission (WSCJTC), which operates Washington’s police training academy, banned the P320 for trainee use.
“My position has to be safety because we know so much now that if I make a different decision, I don’t feel like I’m being responsible,” Monica Alexander, WSCJTC executive director, said upon announcing the ban.
Now, SIG has filed a lawsuit, Sig Sauer Inc. v. WSCJTC, seeking to have the ban reversed and claiming that the ban is unnecessary and not well grounded in fact or law.
“Law enforcement departments throughout Washington State trust, rely on, and prefer the P320 as their service pistol of choice,” the lawsuit states. “By banning the P320 for new law enforcement recruits, the WSCJTC is putting these men and women at a disadvantage when they enter the field and will be assigned the P320.
The action also imposes negative financial impacts on all those law enforcement agencies that utilize the P320 and Sig Sauer. It further inappropriately and unjustifiably inflicts reputational and economic harms on Sig Sauer.”
The plaintiff further argues the lawsuit that the organization’s P320 ban runs afoul of state law and the state’s statute outlining the right to keep and bear arms.
“The executive director’s unilateral decision is inconsistent with the state’s preemption in the field of firearms regulations under Chapter 9.41 RCW and does not fall withing any statutory exception,” the complaint argues. “Chapter 9.41 RCW fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge and transportation of firearms, or any other elements relating to firearms parts thereof.
“Moreover, the action implicates constitutional rights, and at a minimum should be subject of formal rulemaking. The Action has the effect of regulating a field contained in Article 1, Section 24 (Right to Bear Arms)of the Washington Constitution.”
Of course, Sig Sauer is facing a number of lawsuits of its own. One was filed by Houston police officer Rick Fernandez, who claims he was shot in the leg by his holstered P320.
“The bullet from the subject handgun shot through Officer Fernandez’s right calf and lodged into his ankle,” the lawsuit stated. “But the subject handgun, at all times, remained holstered. He never pulled the trigger or otherwise handled the gun.”
Another ongoing lawsuit by a Kentucky man, who claims his holstered P320 fired on its own, is pending before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. In January, that court ruled that a lower court erred in dismissing Timothy Davis’s product liability claims against Sig Sauer. The court found that the district court wrongly barred Davis from using expert witnesses to support his claim that the P320 handgun was defectively designed due to its lack of external safety mechanisms.