THURSTON COUNTY, WA – A state judge out of Washington dismissed a lawsuit brought on by firearm manufacturer Sig Sauer, which said firearm manufacturer reportedly sued the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission after they banned the Sig Sauer P320 back in 2025 from being used in their training facilities.
In the summer of 2025, Sig Sauer filed a lawsuit against the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission, claiming the firearm manufacturer suffered “reputational and economic harms” after the state agency prohibited the model P320 from being utilized by new recruits at the state’s police academy due to safety concerns around the firearm model.
“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 lawsuit reads in part, further noting, “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 move by Washington state officials to prohibit the weapon from their police academy was in response to safety concerns around the firing mechanism of the weapon. Numerous misfire incidents both inside and outside of Washington state involving the P320 led to public speculation and scrutiny that said model was at risk for firing without the trigger being pulled.
Sig Sauer has vehemently denied the existence of faulty firing mechanisms within the P320 and has had a successful track record in litigation over said claims regarding the model. However, while Sig Sauer has fared well in litigation brought against them regarding the P320, their initiated lawfare against the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission didn’t turn out in their favor.
In Judge Carol Murphy’s ruling on the case earlier in January, she found the firearm manufacturer had zero legal standing to file a suit compelling the state’s police academy to upend their prohibition on the firearm model. The decision was reached after the state’s attorney general successfully argued before the court that the police academy has no obligation to “consider the interests of a corporation” when implementing safety protocols.
In the summer of 2025, Sig Sauer filed a lawsuit against the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission, claiming the firearm manufacturer suffered “reputational and economic harms” after the state agency prohibited the model P320 from being utilized by new recruits at the state’s police academy due to safety concerns around the firearm model.
“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 lawsuit reads in part, further noting, “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 move by Washington state officials to prohibit the weapon from their police academy was in response to safety concerns around the firing mechanism of the weapon. Numerous misfire incidents both inside and outside of Washington state involving the P320 led to public speculation and scrutiny that said model was at risk for firing without the trigger being pulled.
Sig Sauer has vehemently denied the existence of faulty firing mechanisms within the P320 and has had a successful track record in litigation over said claims regarding the model. However, while Sig Sauer has fared well in litigation brought against them regarding the P320, their initiated lawfare against the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission didn’t turn out in their favor.
In Judge Carol Murphy’s ruling on the case earlier in January, she found the firearm manufacturer had zero legal standing to file a suit compelling the state’s police academy to upend their prohibition on the firearm model. The decision was reached after the state’s attorney general successfully argued before the court that the police academy has no obligation to “consider the interests of a corporation” when implementing safety protocols.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments