➡ Sig Sauer, a popular gun manufacturer, is suing the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission for banning their P320, M17, and M18 pistols from police training facilities. The ban was based on safety concerns after an incident where a P320 allegedly discharged without the trigger being pulled. However, Sig Sauer and others argue that the gun cannot fire without the trigger being pulled and that the incident was likely due to user or equipment error. This lawsuit could have significant implications for law enforcement agencies and gun owners across the country.

Sig suing police academies. About… bands on their firearms. Welcome back to Guns and Gadgets, the premiere source for Second Amendment news that you won’t hear anywhere else. If you love the U.S. Constitution, hit the subscribe button right now down below to stay up to date on all 2A news, attacks, and victories. It’s free, doesn’t cost you anything. I’m Jared. And today we are covering a developing legal battle that’s got gun owners, law enforcement, and state officials all watching closely. Sig Sauer, the maker of the widely used and allegedly controversial P320 pistols, has filed a lawsuit against the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission after the director banned 320s, M17s, M18s, and M18 pistols from all police training facilities.

This move has huge implications not just for Sig Sauer and Washington law enforcement, but potentially for agencies and gun owners across the country. But first, a quick shout out to today’s sponsor, Blackout Coffee Company. They’re a patriotic, family-run coffee brand that supports freedom, small businesses, and yes, the Second Amendment. If you’re looking to break free from the Woke Coffee Cartel, visit blackoutcoffee.com slash gng and use my code GNG10 for a discount on your order. And you can support companies that share your values. Like you can support groups like Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition just by enjoying their roasts at Blackout Coffee as well.

All right, let’s start with the facts. Back in February of 2025, the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, I’ll probably just call them commission for hearing here on out, they issued a prohibition against the use of the Sig Sauer P320 as well as the M17, M, and M18 models at all of its state-owned and leased training facilities. That means no police recruits across Washington could train with those firearms any longer. The ban was based on a report that pointed to safety concerns, including an alleged incident where a cadet’s P320 discharged during a trainee exercise without anyone pulling the trigger allegedly.

Here is that report right here, and in it you can see here, we’ll go down to the problem statement. The commission experienced a critical safety issue with a Sig Sauer P320 during the fall 2024 Basic Law Enforcement Academy training. There is an abundance of information, not all credible, circulating throughout the public sphere regarding safety issues with the Sig Sauer P320. It is imperative that this report reflect the best intentions and objective efforts to discern between fact and fiction. Providing a comprehensive overview of the event, in contrast to some of the publicly available information, will be the basis for the workgroup discussions and essential insights to assist Executive Director Alexander reach the most logical resolution.

Here’s a summary of the event. On October 9, 2024, Basic Law Enforcement Academy Class 901 was participating in a firearms shooting drill at the Northeast Regional Academy located at the Spokane Police Department’s shooting range. As the recruit drew their firearm at Sig Sauer P320 to engage the course of fire, their gun immediately self-discharged, more commonly or accurately referred to as an uncommanded discharge. The bullet from the recruit’s Sig Sauer P320 struck behind the firearms shooting drill group in the concrete ground. Bullet fragments struck an instructor and another recruit in their lower extremities as they were standing behind the recruit.

All firing was seized to check for injuries and determine the cause for the discharge. The recruit reported that as they drew their gun, quote, I was indexed and the back plate of the slide on my Sig P320 bumped into my vest self-discharging, end quote, which was supported by the firearms instructor who was standing behind the recruit. The firearms instructors summary states that they observed the recruit during the course of fire and upon the command to fire, the recruits quote, weapon immediately fired while he was drawing the weapon, end quote. The firearms instructor also stated they quote, immediately looked at the recruits trigger finger and it was not on the trigger or in the trigger guard, end quote.

The firearms range staff inspected both the recruits gun and holster and then directed the recruit to conduct several additional draws of their gun to include firing. Although no additional issues were detected, the recruit was prohibited from using their Sig Sauer P320 in firearms training. Also part of the report is this work group summary as introduced at the onset. The work group comprised the firearms industry suppliers, commissioned staff and law enforcement personnel from around Washington state. There is no indication that the members from stakeholder agencies were authorized to speak on behalf of their respective agency beyond an offering of their professional opinion.

The opinions opposing the prohibition to the Sig Sauer P320 M17 and 18s will be delineated as con against and those in support of the prohibition will be listed as pro or for cons. There was a clear theme offered by the work group members against the temporary prohibition. The presentation by Sig Sauer’s representative was clear and convincing that the 320 M17 and 18 cannot fire without the trigger being pulled and the commission can provide no evidence to the contrary. Others supporting this argument suggested that using the lower legal standard of preponderance of evidence is not sufficient to prohibit the 320 M17 and 18.

These members passionately argued this is not a legal argument even for a lower standard like preponderance of evidence. Other work group members concluded the commission uncomanded discharge as a mistake of the basic law enforcement academy recruit, equipment management, safety protocols, human body mechanics or other obstructions affecting the draw. In addition, they suggested that perhaps the firearms instructor needed additional training. Although not widely supported, a work group member opined that the online videos are propaganda created by George Soros. Even though the members against the prohibition offered no evidence or contrary information, they passionately argued against any video deceptions, news articles, civil judgments and personal testimonies from military or law enforcement personnel.

And that’s similar with some of the things Sig has said. Sig has said that most of these uncomanded discharges have been either user error or equipment error meaning holsters. And lately it seems like they’ve been saying light bearing holsters because articles can get in there. But we’ll continue. Here’s the pros. The work group members in support of the temporary prohibition offered several local examples of stakeholders agencies who have discontinued authorization to carry the 320 due to concerns for the uncomanded discharge. Agencies listed were Vancouver, Clark County Sheriff and Pierce County Sheriff. A training incident which occurred during a February 24 park ranger law enforcement academy was discussed.

A recruit was reholstering their 320 and reportedly properly indexed when the pistol discharged into the concrete floor of their indoor firing range. Additionally, six military installation uncomanded discharges involving six hour 320 M17s and 18 platforms have occurred since 2021. The most significant event was documented at an Okinawa military base because of their impeccable maintenance and training records. In addition, the clear and convincing video capturing the event only mentioned in the final report, which absolved the security guard of negligence. Included in support of the temporary prohibition is the Department of Defense fiscal year 17 annual report, which outlines the results of their drop testing of the M17 and 18 variant pistols for the Army Modular Handgun System MHS production awarded to SIG.

In addition, their testing revealed the striker struck the primer causing a discharge. SIG Sauer implemented an engineering change proposal to correct this deficiency by implementing lightweight components in the trigger group mechanism. According to the report, this fix may have contributed to the splintering of two triggers. This report goes on to identify other solutions to the problem believed to be caused by the remedy for the drop testing discharges. This reengineering of the trigger and lighter Sier and Stryker is the last known public acknowledgement by SIG to customers in 2017 of this program, which was prompted by the DOD report.

And finally, the critical findings. The amount of information available on the SIG P320 is abundant, which creates challenges to reach consensus for or against the prohibition. In the final analysis, the report eliminated videos and articles from private content creators since the work group could not establish the veracity of the content. The report and its appendices include content and footage members could reasonably validate police body worn camera video, surveillance video, police and military investigative reports, traditional news publications, and television outlets, civil court filings and judgments, and content from firearm manufacturer SIG Sauer. The decision of the commission to temporarily prohibit the use of the SIG Sauer P320, M17 or M18 was done out of an abundance of caution for the safety of our recruits and staff.

We emphasize with our stakeholders over the financial impacts to their agencies and impacts to academy recruits. For these reasons and more, the work group was created to include a diverse group of individuals to share their experience and to foster dialogue and solicit information from opposing viewpoints for the executive director to take into consideration. Despite the argument that an uncommanded discharge is impossible, there remains an abundance of allegations of uncommanded discharges occurring around the country and world attributed nearly exclusively to the SIG Sauer P320, M17 and M18 platforms. The commission’s only concern in this process is preserving the safe learning and working environment for its recruits and instructors.

It is not the obligation or objective of the commission’s executive director to dispel or prove any causation, but rather to review the information collected and make the best decision for the safety and welfare of each individual passing through the owned or leased properties of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission. And that’s exactly what the director did. Here on screen is what he released after those findings. You can pause it if you want to read it, but I’ve also read things to see that this ban has been expanded, not just for training staff and academy attendees, like the recruits, but now it’s for anybody visiting the facility or taking training at the facility.

So that would be all of your SWAT classes, your in-service training, anybody coming to any academy that’s owned or leased or property owned by the commission. So this is a big old ban where you can’t bring the 320 anywhere on their property. So as a result, SIG Sauer released this. It says, SIG Sauer and others appeal the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission’s 320 M17 and M18 firearms ban. SIG Sauer, a leading U.S. defense manufacturer and others have challenged the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission’s ban of the 320 M17 and M18 pistols. In appealing the ban, SIG demonstrates the continued respect for and partnership with Washington law enforcement who carries these pistols.

The commission’s ban appears to be based solely on inaccurate and incomplete information, which is underscored by the commission’s failure to provide any reliable evidence or supportable conclusions in its own report. Further, this ban deprives students and law enforcement agencies the ability to train with widely respected, tested and preferred service sidearms. SIG Sauer looks forward to its continued partnership with local law enforcement and zealously defending its pistols in furtherance of overturning the commission’s unnecessary and unprecedented prohibition. For more info and accurate facts about the 320, please visit p320truth.com. Alright, so you saw that it referenced an issue in Okinawa, so I need to tell you that this all happened before an airman who was carrying a SIG Sauer M18 pistol died from a gunshot wound at the Francis E.

Warren Air Force Base outside of Cheyenne, Wyoming on Sunday. Now, from the reports we’re hearing, that airman removed the gun while in the holster from his Safariland drop leg setup, just using the fork on the Safariland product, placed it on a table, and it allegedly discharged and struck him in the chest, thus him losing his life. The Air Force has released very few details on it while it investigates the death of 21-year-old Braden Lovin of Greenville, Kentucky. However, the Global Strike Command subsequently ordered personnel not to carry M18s while safety investigations take place. The ban only applies to the approximately 33,000 personnel of the Global Strike Command, not the entire Air Force, and you can pause this memo if you want to read this as well.

In Washington, the commission quickly moved to issue that blanket man. The decision immediately impacted several law enforcement agencies that used the 320 as their duty weapon, including the city of Bellevue, whose police chief publicly opposed the decision because he would have to buy all new guns, holsters, optics, lights, ammo, magazines, etc. So, a lot of money on these decisions. So, SIG filed a lawsuit. According to their 36-page lawsuit, they repeatedly have reached out to the commission starting late in 2024, and they submitted data, answered questions, and even offered to participate in that workgroup to review any concerns about the firearm.

And SIG, a member of SIG, did participate in that program and gave a clear and convincing demonstration about the five safeties in that gun that have to all be moved at the same time. They all have to be done at the same time in order for the gun to fire. But SIG claims their requests for formal adjudicative proceeding were ignored for over two months. With no response and facing growing reputational and financial harm, they filed a lawsuit in Thurston County Superior Court in June last month. Now, let’s break down what SIG’s lawyers are arguing because this case could have implications beyond Washington State.

Number one, unauthorized rulemaking. SIG says the commission imposed a de facto rule, a broad firearm prohibition, without following the state’s rulemaking statute. Number two, a preemption violation. Washington’s own firearm preemption law says local agencies can’t regulate firearms. Only the state legislature can. The training commission went rogue, according to SIG, and basically they are saying the director’s ban is the same as a state issued law or a piece of gun control. Now, I do wish SIG fought the states this hard that have handgun rosters and would help protect the Second Amendment from state tyranny. That would be cool to see.

Number three, due process violations. SIG argues the ban was imposed arbitrarily without giving them fair process or a chance to present evidence violating basic constitutional norms. And number four, damage to law enforcement agencies. Departments like Bellevue rely on SIG firearms. With the ban in place, they can’t train officers properly unless they switch gear at the taxpayer’s expense. Number five, reputational harm. SIG claims in the lawsuit how the commission’s public statements paint SIG pistols as unsafe, potentially causing irreparable damage to the company’s reputation in both commercial and government markets. From SIG Sauer’s perspective, the commission’s actions don’t just hurt their business, but they also cause confusion for law enforcement officers who are now forced to switch sidearms mid-training.

This isn’t just about one manufacturer’s bottom line. It has real-world consequences for law enforcement agencies and officers. Because of the ban, departments like Bellevue PD are now caught in the middle. They’re forced to either buy new guns for training, recertify officers on unfamiliar platforms, or send recruits to outer state academies for work. So, SIG claimed the ban puts more strain on already tight department budgets. And remember, the P320, which includes the M17 and M18 models, are used by hundreds of agencies across the United States. They’re also standard issue for the U.S. Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and they are employed by many, many agencies overseas as well.

And to be fair, the 320 hasn’t been without controversy. Since 2017, there have been reports of unintentional discharges. Some lawsuits claim the pistol can fire when dropped or holstered even when no one touches the trigger. A SIG responded with a voluntary upgrade program and maintains that the pistol is safe when handled properly. The company also emphasizes that the P320 has passed extensive military testing, far more rigorous than most civilian firearms undergo. Most of these discharges are alleged in lawsuits. And like many things in the firearm world, there’s a lot of debate about whether they stem from mechanical defects or user error.

So where do things stand now? The lawsuit’s currently making its way through the Thurston County Superior Court. SIG is asking for a court order to halt the ban immediately and a final ruling that the prohibition is unlawful. Meanwhile, the firearms community and law enforcement agencies across the country are watching closely. My question to you is this. Do you agree with the commission’s director banning this gun, or any gun, in any circumstance, regardless of potential or alleged safety concerns? Why do I say that? Because if, this is constitutional now, if a state agency, and the police training commission is acting as a government agency, if a state agency can ban a widely used and common use firearm without legislative authority, what’s to stop other states from doing the same, and is that not a violation of the Second Amendment? That’s a tough question for you, and I want to read your input down below.

This case is about more than the P320. It’s about whether agencies can make sweeping decisions without oversight, public input, or accountability. And this is an interesting one. This just happens to be around a pistol everybody’s talking about right now. Let me know what you think. I’ll keep you posted as it develops. And if you appreciate these in-depth breakdowns, please subscribe to the channel and like the video and share it as well. And don’t forget to check our friends at Blackout Coffee. They help keep this channel going, and they support the values that I hold dear. Head over to blackoutcoffee.com slash gng and use code gngten at checkout to save.

This is Jared from Guns N’ Gadgets, and as always, be safe, stay vigilant, and stay free. Take care, y’all. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.